comment

[dsj]

well, My information came from my university studies of history. Here, based on the newest researches I was told thatbattle of Poitiers was no crucial breaking point where Saracens were trying to expand their rule over Pyrenées. It also was no "bandit" band, as you misunderstood me.
Believe me. Arabs conquered most of Spain very rapidly in several years and they were only sending some small troops overy pyrenes to plunder a little. Their "force" that was met by Charles Martel was one of them which had lost.
It was propaganda of Frankish kings and the pope who made from this unimportant meeting crucial battle for Europe. for more information about if, ask please PhDr. Václav Drska from Charles University, Prague.
When Frankish majordom dynasty of Pipins claimed frankish crown, they needed to support their claim by something. Victory over large and dangerous Arab army was a perfect "legitimation" alongside with others. Battle of Poitiers then is probably one of the best acts of Propaganda in whole european history. Maybe it was some Abd-ar-Rahman, but not that famous Ummayid emir whose descendant Abd-ar-Rahman III became caliph of Cordoba in 929.
spo again:battle of Poitiers was meeting of large army of Charles Martel (on a way to subordinate duke of Aquitaine) and band of Saracens that had lost on their plunder-trip. If you look at historical sources, this battle was not mentioned immediately. It was first mentioned in times of majordomus Pipin(son of Martel), who then claimed throne of Frankish kings.
PS: famous Abd-ar-Rahman (Ummayid one) was 20 when he left Damascus in 750, so I am sure it was another guy caled Abd-ar-Rahman. Sure it was no famous emir of Cordoba who led saracen forces at poitiers :smile: Make a little research anywhere and you'll see that it was SOME Abdarahman, but not emir of Cordoba, because Abd-ar-Rahman, emir of Cordoba, settled in Cordoba in 756 when he was 26, so I am sure he couldn't lead saracen army at Poitiers (2 years old somehwere he came first 24 years later)


Sorry? Few notes to this:
in 1280 there was no Holy Roman Emperor between 1250 and 1312 (Frederick II. Hohenstauf died in 1250, then there was interregnum and next king of romans or roman king came in 1312, when Henry VII(as emperor) of Luxembourg was crowned in Rome!!) then I am sure that king Rudolph of Hapsburg bothered his majesty to wip out mongolian scouts..how? with his army? I could believe that in 1280 king of Romans(I guess this was the official title of Rudolph of Hapsburg) was on some diplomatical mission in Hungary, but I am sure that he wouldn't risk meeting with mongolian army. Maybe they met some band of scouts, but I wouldn't call it battle.
Not everything what is written in medieval chronicles is true, my friend. So I would really like to give info where this "battle" happened, if a meeting of scouts and majesty of HolyRomanEmperor (who wasn't Holy RomanEmperor) and king of Hungary could be considered as battle.

so, sorry, this proves me that I can't believe that mr. Victor Hanson and his Carnage and Culture. If he is a historic, how could he seriously say that in 1280 there was Holy Roman Emperor? what is he?

I rather don't somment your "signs of inferiority" above chinese etc. I am really not sure if European values are better than other. If there was any reason of European rule in the world it was not ideas of democracy (which hardly was applied in subjected lands), but weapons - guns.


depends on which part of european army do you mean, which time do you mean. In 12th and 13th century, chainmail was still expensive enough not to be given to some militia troops. Even poorer nobles had problems to buy good armou to their sons so I am sure that militia troops were not as well equiped as you descirbe. My source is Georges Duby, one of the most respected medievalists, and his work Dimanche de Bouvines (sunday of Bouvines, 14 july 1214) where he describes european warfare from approx. 1000. A.D. to 13th century. Fact is that in 14th century situation was quite different (in France, in eastern Europe, that was to fight Mongols and Ottomans, most of this was delayed about 100,in 14th century about 50 years (it changed when "French" dynasties of Anjou and Luxembourg ruled Hungary and Bohemia and imported there French culture-sure about Bohemia, possible in Hungary)


sorry? 100.000 vs 65.000 men in medieval battle in Europe in 1241? and where did you get that? in some chronicle? Mongol population wasn't so numerous to be able to send such army in Europe
If you call every major chronicle and modern book inaccurate and make your own estimates and guesses, then I have nothing more to say. Everything is exactly agrees with about what I have said about poitiers. These books aren't a hundred dollar scholary books they are common books for the average reader and some of them very popular. carnage and culture is a national bestseller in the united states. Not reconizing the battle tours is like not believing in midway. means that I have nothing more to argue with you.

[Elvain]

If you call every major chronicle and modern book inaccurate and make your own estimates and guesses, then I have nothing more to say. Everything is exactly agrees with about what I have said about poitiers. These books aren't a hundred dollar scholary books they are common books for the average reader and some of them very popular. carnage and culture is a national bestseller in the united states. Not reconizing the battle tours is like not believing in midway. means that I have nothing more to argue with you.
that something is bestseller doesn't mean it is a true.
My information came from years of studies at the most prestige and probably also the best university of my country. If mr. Hanson is a historian and makes popularization of history, I can polemize with him. but I'm affraid there are many people who write bestsellers by repeating old stories which were already proven as false.

I didn't say that battle of Tours didn't happen. I only say - according to newest historical researches which were probably forgotten in mr. Hanson's and all other older books - that this battle didn't change fate of christian Europe. It was one small battle like houndreds in european history, but it was made as significant by Carolingian (and Pipin's and papal) propaganda, like many legends.
Maybe this theory wll be found as inaccurate too, but prom perspective of todays historyy as science, it seems to be the closest to truth. You wouldn't believe nazi propagandistic documents that Jews were dangerous for whole Europe, but you easily believe in another propaganda, few centuries older, but still propaganda.
Those estimates are not my own, they are based on work of serious scientific historical researches. I believe more to one of most respected historian - Georges Duby - than some mr. Hanson and his popular US bestseller.

[dsj]

that something is bestseller doesn't mean it is a true.
My information came from years of studies at the most prestige and probably also the best university of my country. If mr. Hanson is a historian and makes popularization of history, I can polemize with him. but I'm affraid there are many people who write bestsellers by repeating old stories which were already proven as false.

I didn't say that battle of Tours didn't happen. I only say - according to newest historical researches which were probably forgotten in mr. Hanson's and all other older books - that this battle didn't change fate of christian Europe. It was one small battle like houndreds in european history, but it was made as significant by Carolingian (and Pipin's and papal) propaganda, like many legends.
Maybe this theory wll be found as inaccurate too, but prom perspective of todays historyy as science, it seems to be the closest to truth. You wouldn't believe nazi propagandistic documents that Jews were dangerous for whole Europe, but you easily believe in another propaganda, few centuries older, but still propaganda.
Those estimates are not my own, they are based on work of serious scientific historical researches. I believe more to one of most respected historian - Georges Duby - than some mr. Hanson and his popular US bestseller.


Tours is not an old european story. If it can be counted as a minor skrimish then stalingrad or midway can be too. It is commonly accepted as the turning point of the early islamic invasions into spain. I don't know what your university is to totally ignore this significance.

[Elvain]

Tours is not an old european story. If it can be counted as a minor skrimish then stalingrad or midway can be too. It is commonly accepted as the turning point of the early islamic invasions into spain. I don't know what your university is to totally ignore this significance.ok.
do you know what wold happen if Hitler had won WW2?
Holocaust, if anybody would have heard of it, would be propagated as turning point of european history too, because the WINNER writes history, don't you know? In my country we were long taught that Great October's Socialistic Revolution in Russia in 1917 was the most important turning point of history of mankind, because socialism had finally won. I would like you to say this TODAY in centre of Prague and to see the reaction. It was also "commonly accepted" turning point - a lie, however.

Charles university in Prague(btw the oldest university north of Alps and east of Rhine), as all other good universities is an institution to highly educate people and to teach them to respect and seek the truth. And this truth stands above some "commonly accepted" pseudotruths.
Capturing of Rome in 476 is "commonly accepted" as the end of ancient times in history and start of middleages, but in fact it was not such significant, because Rome was conquered few times before this date already and many times after and the real power already setteled in Constantinople and Roman empire survived.
November 17 1989 is understood as turning point of Czechoslovak history, but in fact the most important changes happened before (in communist USSR) and then in free Czechoslovakia...
So called turning points are given as symbols, battle of Poitiers/Tours can be understood as symbol of turning point of islamic invasion to Spain (but in fact it was battle of Covadonga-have you ever heard of it?-which was much more important-Saracens were defeated by the "Spanish" christians), it is a symbol that "once in history, Arabs conquered Spain, but the rest of western Europe remained christian". Maybe in India, there is a story about some "battle" where some local armies met some of troops of Alexandre the Great and they have won and then it was said in some parts of India that IT was the main reason why Alexandre turned back towards west. Would you accept it as true? I wouldn't.

Every conquest once reaches it's maximum and then needs time to get "second breath" at least(if it is possible). In fact in Spain, Arabs were in such minority that they couldn't afford any other big conquest, but they were trying, as long as it was possible, to plunder areas behind the border of conquest(what is absolutely natural). One of these challenges turned to meeting with forces of maiordomus of frankish king who was on a way to subordinate duke of Aquitaine. This meeting, due to propaganda of Martel's son Pipin and his ally-the pope, then became a symbol of the end of muslim conquest of Europe. If you look at evidence of this battle, most of it, if not all "origial", is from times when Pipin negotiated with papacy about his claims on frankish throne and after he sucessfully claimed it, not before.

in fact, importance of battle of Tours/Poitiers was a fruit of propaganda of pope and frankish king Pipin (father of Charlemagne). When Giordano Bruno (know that name? he's not as famous as Galileo Galilei, but in fact it was Bruno, who died for truth) stood against church court, he fought against "commonly accepted" truth that the Earth is a plate. He has died, because he didn't accepted it. Today, thanks to researches, we know that he was right. Who knows names of his judges today? who knows names of Galilei's judges? Sorry to say it, but they were people like you, unable to wise up that to find the truth, you must sometimes refuse "commonly accepted" so-called-truths.

best wishes, Elvain

[dsj]

Islam was on the aggression, it wanted to assimilate all the world through conquest. What made it stop, there must be a reason. And this reason was poitiers. It was clearly documented in both islamic and christian sources that charles the hammer had smashed the islamic army. If poitiers was a minor skrimish then mabe warterloo was too. mabe napoleon retired because he was tired. The west had twenty thousand well armed militia man and nulled the arabic arrows. get a copy of carnage and culture and see for your self. And if you still don't believe it go to his site and ask him about it.

[dsj]

Plus, I do know the people you have mentioned.

[dsj]

Plus, I do know the people you have mentioned.

[Picotrain]

Just because somebody writes a book about something, it doesn't necessarily make it the gospel truth. I could write a book about how the moon is made of green cheese, but it would still be an obvious lie. Similarly, if an author claims that the outcome of a battle was the single most important reason why Islam didn't conquer Europe, it may be his opinion, but it isn't necessarily the only valid one. Nobody is disputing that there exists a book about Poitiers, but they do contest that it was the most signifigant battle in European history. I, too, have my doubts that Poitiers was even in the top five most signifigant battles in European history. It is my, yours, and everyone else's, perogative to claim which battles they thought were the most important, and as there is no way to determine which one is indeed the most important, nobody, including you, dsj, can be disproven.

[dsj]

Just because somebody writes a book about something, it doesn't necessarily make it the gospel truth. I could write a book about how the moon is made of green cheese, but it would still be an obvious lie. Similarly, if an author claims that the outcome of a battle was the single most important reason why Islam didn't conquer Europe, it may be his opinion, but it isn't necessarily the only valid one. Nobody is disputing that there exists a book about Poitiers, but they do contest that it was the most signifigant battle in European history. I, too, have my doubts that Poitiers was even in the top five most signifigant battles in European history. It is my, yours, and everyone else's, perogative to claim which battles they thought were the most important, and as there is no way to determine which one is indeed the most important, nobody, including you, dsj, can be disproven.
Islam had a whole 20000 eliete fighting troops, of course it was utilizing it's whole arsenal. And the defeat of such a force means that it's a turning point in history.

[Elvain]

you don't know Georges Duby? are you interested in medieval warfare and you don't know this name? are you joking? do you know Jacques Le Goff? Have you ever heard of theese historians? It's like if you would like to discuss ancient philosophy while not knowing about Plato and Socrates, modern policy without knowing Henry Kissinger and Samuel Huntington, religion without knowing Moses and Buddha, music without knowing Bach and Beatles, literature without Goethe and Shakespeare, physics without Newton and Einstein, medicine without Hippocrates and Avicenna, psychology without Freud and Fromm, fine arts without Michelangelo or Rembrandt....

can you tell me who is mr. Victor Hanson, author of your Gospel carnage and culture? where did he study history?

OK. So can you tell me why did roman expansion ended?
Islamic conquest was very impulsive and fast. Why did it stopped?

Are you really such naive to believe that ONE battle could have stopped such conquest? It was possible iat Waterloo, where all Napoleon's troops were concentrated, but not at Poitiers/Tours
How many battles did Greeks needed to defeat Persians on their own land? far more than one

Islam had a whole 20000 eliete fighting troops, of course it was utilizing it's whole arsenal. And the defeat of such a force means that it's a turning point in history sore islam in 732 might have 20000 elite troops, but you can be sure that not in battle of Poitiers, they were spread all over world of islam... In 732's Spain there wasn't even 20000 Arabs (including women), they wouldn't send such number of troops on some looting campaign.
where did you (and probably mr. Hanson) get this number? in medieval legends or chronicles?
In all medieval sources, numbers of men in battles are overwhelmed(especially on enemy side-to point out the glory of vicotry), you should know it when you are so interested in medieval warfare (what I must honestly doubt seriously, since you haven't ever heard of Georges Duby).

But I wouldn't try to convince you. Keep your truth that the Earth is a plate. If you think that Europe was always superior over China and all other world's civilisations, think it. But the fact is:
1)China always was (except time between 1850-2000) and will be superior power in Asia
2)Europe would be nothing without chinese , arabic or simply "eastern" inventions (gunpowder, weapon wich lied whole world under legs of Europe came from China)
3)european medicine, astronomy, technic wtc. would be nothing without arabian inventions which came to Europe through Cordoba and Sicily (not through Crusader Holy land, as many people thought)
4)untill approx. 1200 AD Europe was barbarian edge of Asia in comparison to high culture of Byzantine empire and Arabian Middle East and Spain
5)Arabian conquest of Europe in west(Spain) was already on it's top few years before battle of Poitiers. It wasn't strength of Europe what defeated Spanish muslims, but their tiredness

[HappyAdolf]

you call me racist , harsh , and iqnorant hahaha so funny :biggrin: .


1.first off , you say that im racist against europeans , ehh im european why should i be racist against my self :gaga2: . im highly setted against racism , you dont even know me in real a statement doesnt tell the persons tale .


2.i know some about history maybe not like others in this forum who studies in collage , but still i know stuff ,




I can confirm both of those sentences :angel:

[Picotrain]

It's all subjective. No battle can be ultimately proven to be greater or more important than any other. It's not like we'd know what would happen if, for example, if Napoleon had won the battle of Waterloo. It may not make any difference, it may have lead to French dominance over Europe to this very moment, we'll never know.

By the way, Elvain asked if dsj was a USAmerican..... I'm Canadian, does that make me a Canadamerican? ;-) Just kidding

[Elvain]

PS: one more note to dsj and his knowledge about warfare:
would you say that Napoleon failed in his campaign in Russia because Russian army was superior over French?
would you say that Hitler's failiure in front of Moscow due to supreiority of Red army over Wehrmacht?
Would you say that american war of independency was won by better armed army?
would you say that battle of Bouvines was won by stronger army?

PS: Picotrain, I have deleted this question because I've found it silly and irelevant and I didn't want it to be commented. Thanks