Battle of Tours (732 also called Battle of Poitiers).

Charle Martel, nicknamed The Hammer, halted the mulsim expansion at the Battle of Tours. It is believed that if Martel's army failed that day, the rest of Europe would have succombed to Islam. In other words, saving Christianity.

What are your thoughts on it? Do you share this opinion, do you view him as the Hammer of God (Christian's God in this case ;) ).

No, it wasn't. It's simply become mythologized and used by hacks for some sort of modern day interpretations of civilizational clash. The Arabs and Berbers had already overextended themselves, this advance into Southern France was already beyond their power. It's complete crap.

Jonatus speaks truth. A much over-rated event, the Battle of Tours.
Really just an ill-advised raid on the part of the Musselmans.

i wonder, though, what if the Muslims HAD won at Tours? Would they have tried to stay?

i wonder, though, what if the Muslims HAD won at Tours? Would they have tried to stay?
Probably not.
They did stay for half a century in the south of France. But generally they don't seem to have had the numbers or the inclination to keep moving further north.
Which is why even if they had won at Poitiers it wouldn't have meant the opening of the floodgates. There wasn't a pent up wave behind it. It had already become a trickle. They might have temporarily establisehed themselves somewhere in mid-France, like they did in Marseilles further south, but without a serious boost from North Africa they wouldn't have been able to hold on to it.

Of course, as with all what-if's, you can assume some new factors to give the Muslim northwards expansion a new lease on life, they just won't come about from winning at Poitiers.

If you read the first "What If" book, there's a fairly well-written article there about what might have happened if the Franks had lost at Tours (nowadays historians prefer to say "Battle of Poitiers," but I learned about it as the "Battle of Tours," and I'll continue to call it that, thank you very much). The thrust of it was that after Tours, Islam would likely have spread through most of Europe, but in the process both the Muslims and their European opponents would have been completely exhausted by the fighting, and would have been in much worse shape later on when the Mongols invaded. The result (according to this view): the Mongols advance much further into Europe, the Middle East, and even North Africa than they did in our timeline, and cause a lot more destruction.

Yes well, Tours of course. (Sloppy me, sorry.):)

Thing is, was there a massive Muslim build-up to push into western Europe, or wasn't there? Where the Muslim leaders and armies in full-fig and poised to go north in force, or not?

As the Muslims didn't even notice the battle it seems unlikely they were having any grand designs on France, not to mention further afield.

Had a great Muslim initiative been thrown back in confusion and doubt on the Muslim side, then it would have been safe to infer that Tours was a decisive turning point. But they didn't notice it, did they? Somehow it then appears more likely this was an advanced probe that ran into som stiff opposition, signalling that this was as far as the Muslims in Spain would be able to push it. Going further would take more resources and men than they had at their disposal.

I always thought the muslim army in southern France was an army of occupation not a raiding party?

It was a raid. It was very common in both sides along those years. In fact there was another more important battle in current France IIRC, the battle of Tolousse, ten years before Tours when the muslim armies had all his momentum after conquering Spain. However that time the Christian General was not Frankish but from Aquitaine so he was not promoted to famous Frankish national hero under the Carolingian Empire as Martel was.

Jonatus speaks truth. A much over-rated event, the Battle of Tours.
Really just an ill-advised raid on the part of the Musselmans.

I'm sure the Persians would have said the same thing about the Battle of Nehavend had they won, after all the fledgling Muslim movement could not have possibly conquered the great Persian empire and completey decimate its culture and religion. Or did they?
Just some food for thought.

No much food there indeed. If Muslims neither flooded nor stablished solidily in the northern half of Spain, i dont see how they would have done it further north, in France.

No much food there indeed. If Muslims neither flooded nor stablished solidily in the northern half of Spain, i dont see how they would have done it further north, in France.

I see, so you don't consider a 60,000 to 300,000 heavy and light Muslim calvary force a solid established northern front? Compared to Charles Martels 15,000 to 75,000 mostly unarmored infantry I would say the Muslims were quite established.
I think you should also consider that even after the Muslim defeat at Tours four separate Emirs of al-Andalus , over a 25 year period used a Fatwa(a ruling or an order given by a Muslim leader) from the Caliph to levy troops from all provinces of Africa, Syria, and even Turkomens, to raise four huge invading armies, with the intention of permanent expansion across the Pyrenees into Europe. However no later attempts were made because conflict between the Umayyad Caliph of Iberia and the Abbasid Caliphate in Baghdad prevented a unified assault on Europe.

Most historians essentially agree had the Franks fallen, no other power existed stopping Muslim conquest of Italy and the effective end of what would become the modern Catholic Church.

I thought the high tide was the seige of viennia ?
Which turned back the Muslim expension into europe for good.

I see, so you don't consider a 60,000 to 300,000 heavy and light Muslim calvary force a solid established northern front? Compared to Charles Martels 15,000 to 75,000 mostly unarmored infantry I would say the Muslims were quite established.
Where are that numbers from? I suposse from original sources. As Most historians agree they are totally screwed, many times higher than the real ones.
I think you should also consider that even after the Muslim defeat at Tours four separate Emirs of al-Andalus , over a 25 year period used a Fatwa(a ruling or an order given by a Muslim leader) from the Caliph to levy troops from all provinces of Africa, Syria, and even Turkomens, to raise four huge invading armies, with the intention of permanent expansion across the Pyrenees into Europe.

First time i hear about it. BTW It seems you keep ignoring the fact of that Muslims were never stablished in the north of Spain. In fact there is not a single trace of muslim presence in northern Spain excepting some sparse outposts that they occupied since about 712 until 720 so already abandoned 10 years before Tours, at the time of Covadonga and Tolousse battles. Most northern Spain was never visited by the muslims indeed. In fact nothern Spain was easily reconquered by the Astur kings in few years. Even Central Spain was mostly a nobody land.
Obviously they had not much interest in stablishing further north.
However no later attempts were made because conflict between the Umayyad Caliph of Iberia and the Abbasid Caliphate in Baghdad prevented a unified assault on Europe.
Then i would call this the main cause that prevented that "assault on Europe". OTOH you are wrong here, there were many muslim raids in Provence many years after Tours.
Most historians essentially agree had the Franks fallen, no other power existed stopping Muslim conquest of Italy and the effective end of what would become the modern Catholic Church.
What historians are you referring to? Chateaubriand or some other 18-19th century guys as Gibbon? Most modern historians strongly disagree with such version.
OTOH in order to expand a bit your oversimplified view of the history you should read for instance about the conquest of Sicilly and the Lazio by the muslims around 850 and how they raid Rome several times looting the very center of the Roman church, San Pedro and San Pablo churches. :D

I see, so you don't consider a 60,000 to 300,000 heavy and light Muslim calvary force a solid established northern front? Compared to Charles Martels 15,000 to 75,000 mostly unarmored infantry I would say the Muslims were quite established.


You don't understand. Much of Northern Spain was never properly controlled nor islamicized. Also I would be wary of basing all your opinions on a quick Wikipedia reading. Gibbon's famous quote about the Koran being taught in Oxford is ridiculous. Many experts on Islamic history do not agree with your assertions in general. Also Berbers and Arabs functioned according to a highly divisive clan system, which encourage inner conflict, in addition to the existing ethnic tensions between the two groups. There were massive Berber rebellions agains the Arabs during this time period in Iberia, in addition to clan fighting within both groups. Simply not enough unity to conquer and islamicize Western Europe. As I and others have already pointed out, Northern Spain itself was never properly islamicized.

I think you should also consider that even after the Muslim defeat at Tours four separate Emirs of al-Andalus , over a 25 year period used a Fatwa(a ruling or an order given by a Muslim leader) from the Caliph to levy troops from all provinces of Africa, Syria, and even Turkomens, to raise four huge invading armies, with the intention of permanent expansion across the Pyrenees into Europe. However no later attempts were made because conflict between the Umayyad Caliph of Iberia and the Abbasid Caliphate in Baghdad prevented a unified assault on Europe.
.

There were massive armies levied out of Morocco and Africa during the Reconquista too, and brought into Iberia. These armies conquered some more territory in the peninsula, and then were thrown back quickly enough, without leaving any permanent changes on the peninsula.

And yes of course the Umayyads and Abbasids fought against each other. But this is a manifestation of the clan structure inherent to Arabs (and Berbers) which often prevented greater unity. This was played out constantly in Iberia, from the very beginning of Arab invastion. The story of Tarik and Musa is classic. Of course the Arabs were divided. They always were.

I always thought the muslim army in southern France was an army of occupation not a raiding party?
They held Marseilles as a base of operations for about 50 years, yes. That would be from where they probed northwards.

I think the argument here is that they weren't ousted from it in the end because the probing ran into opposition, but because they lacked the numbers and resources to maintain their control over it in the long run.

Tours can be considered symbolicaly important as the breaking of a trend if one wishes. It's just the argument that Tours caused the breaking of the trend that is fishy.:)

had the Franks fallen, no other power existed stopping Muslim conquest of Italy and the effective end of what would become the modern Catholic Church.
The Langobards were already fighting the Muslims in Italy. There was frequent raiding up to the outskirts of Rome and Sicily was controlled by the Muslims, making up a pretty considerable minority of the islands population. I see no reason to assume that they would have had to force the alpine passes to take over Italy, as they were already stuck into it. They didn't because in the end they lacked the capacity to do so more likely than not.

But it's of course true that aside from the Franks there wasn't much to stop a Muslim advance, should they have been able to deal with them. Part of the reason being that there wasn't much in the way of urban and organised society to take over in Europe yet.

The Muslim conquest worked fine in a relatively urbanised context. Bumping into the agrarian, tribal societies of northern Europe wouldn't perhaps have taxed them militarily, but organising things is such a way that they could control society would have been a major challenge.

Those are interesting what if's:
If the dynamic of Christianisation had changed, and the medieval urbanisation had worked out different in Europe, what then?

But we still circle back to the basic what-if assumption, whether Tours was a signal confirming that the Muslim expansion had finally run up against the outer limits of its capacity, or if Tours somehow caused this outer limit to be set.

The base at Fraxinetum was really used for Piracy. Muslim piracy and sea power was pretty extensive in the Mediterranean. We can see it in Sicily, for example.

But we still circle back to the basic what-if assumption, whether Tours was a signal confirming that the Muslim expansion had finally run up against the outer limits of its capacity, or if Tours somehow caused this outer limit to be set.

To islamicize and control Western Europe would have taken enormous power. The farther extended from Morocco, the harder it would become. It's one thing to send an army deep into such a region, quite another to create a new civilization and maintain constant and direct control. This was not even achieved in Northern Iberia, which points to a certain lack of interest and power there. The internal conflict endemic to the invaders would have only weakened them further, IMO.

Anyway I believe the Muslims were always more focused on the Mediterranean. The areas such as Southern Iberia and Sicily were very geographically close to North Africa.

You don't understand. Much of Northern Spain was never properly controlled nor islamicized. Also I would be wary of basing all your opinions on a quick Wikipedia reading. Gibbon's famous quote about the Koran being taught in Oxford is ridiculous. Many experts on Islamic history do not agree with your assertions in general.


My opinions are not based on a "quick" Wikipedia reading, I rarely visit that site. I find some of the information given in Wikipedia to be unreliable and biased. Edward Gibbon is a distinguished scholar and historian who is best known as the author of "The decline and fall of the Roman Empire", modern historians considered it a monumental achievement. I agree with much of his assessments, however I do not rely solely on his work.
I also rely on the work of Islamic historians whos presumptions of the Battle of Tours are not entirely different from Gibbons.

Lets start with the Arabic dictionary and how it defines Al-Ghafiqi, the commander of the Muslim armies of Andalusia:

Abdul-Rahman Al-Ghafiqi (died 114 A.H./732 A.D.)
An Arab Muslim commander and governor of Andalusia (721-732 A.D.) Planning to annex Gaul to Muslim provinces in Europe, he crossed the Pyrenees, captured Bordeaux and defeated an army under Eudo, duke of Aquitaine. He was then defeated by the Frankish leader Charles Martel, whose men killed Abdul-Rahman at the Battle of Tour-Poitiers (732 A.D.)

We see here that even modern Islamic academia acknowledged that the Muslims planned to annex Gaul to Muslim provinces in Europe.

Islamic historians acknowledge that AL-Ghafiti's defeat and death was regarded as a catastrophe of major proportions.
Abdur-Rahman Al-Ghafiqi, the hero of the Court of Martyrs. He spent two years preparing for fighting against the non-Muslims in European countries. He started such preparations by reforming the interior affairs in Muslim community, so that he could make people unite, Arabs and non-Arabs, Muslims and Copts, under one banner to conquer the enemies of Islam.

After the death of Al-Ghafiti, Muslim Chronicles reveal that the varying generals from the different parts of the Caliphate, Berbers, Arabs, Persians and far more, could not agree on a leader to take Al-Ghafiti's place as commander. Only Al-Ghafiti, had a Fatwa from the Caliph, and thus absolute authority over the faithful under arms. With his death, and the varied nationalities and ethnicities present in an army drawn from all over the Caliphate, politics, racial and ethnic bias, and personalities began squabbling, and the surviving generals, bickering among themselves, were unable to agree on a commander to lead them the following day. It was the inability to select anyone to lead, which led to the entire withdrawal of an army that probably still could have defeated the Franks.

The Muslim army at the Battle of Tours was not a "raiding party" It was a combined Islamic host whos intention was to further Islamic domain in Europe.

A Muslim historian lamented:

Thus, the great month of Ramadan witnessed a series of victories for three consecutive years on the hand of those great leaders: Tarif Al-Barbari, Tariq Ibn Ziyad and Musa Ibn Nusair who strove hard to spread Islam on the land of Andalusia, the lost paradise. Yes, it’s a treasure which Muslims lost due to lacking elevated values of unity, and brotherhood. Isn’t it the right time for Muslims to unite, to return back to the path of Allah? To respond to the call of their faith and dignity and liberate their lands?


Simply not enough unity to conquer and islamicize Western Europe. As I and others have already pointed out, Northern Spain itself was never properly islamicized.

I am pointing out that northern Spain being unIslamicized would have little effect on Islamic expansion further into Europe. Their were Muslim bases situated along the northern border of Spain ready to crush any rebellion.
In fact, rebellions were common but were dealt with swiftly and without mercy. As the Muslim historian Abdul Aziz Ashinnawy explains:

During his rule, Al-Ghafiqi succeeded in overcoming the rebellions and civil conflicts that erupted continually. He also had a greater success in confronting the army of Charlemange after he and his armies crossed the Pyrenees Mountains. The Muslims defeated Charlemange's army and many noblemen were killed. Thus, Al-Ghafiqi was appreciated and highly admired by those who lived at his time, and Abu Ja'far Al-Mansur, the Abbassid caliph, called him the "Hawk of the Quraish".
This Iron-fisted method to suppress, assimilate and expand was a key factor in Islams rapid expansion, they perfected it.


Tours can be considered symbolicaly important as the breaking of a trend if one wishes. It's just the argument that Tours caused the breaking of the trend that is fishy.

I agree, their were certainly other key battles, but I believe the victory of the Battle at Tours was a macrohistorical event at least for Charles Martel and his Franks if not all Europe. After the pivotal Battle at Tours Charlemagne gained momentum defeating Al-Ghafiqi's son who launched another Muslim attack.

So you find more reliable the islamic sources. Are you saying they know things other historians ignore?
I am pointing out that northern Spain being unIslamicized would have little effect on Islamic expansion further into Europe. Their were Muslim bases situated along the northern border of Spain ready to crush any rebellion.
In fact, rebellions were common but were dealt with swiftly and without mercy. As the Muslim historian Abdul Aziz Ashinnawy explains:

OMG. You have not a clue about the muslim presence in iberia. Which cities? The only city controlled by the muslims in northern Spain was Gijon, ocupied in the 713 and they were not too succesful crushing uprisings since there was a major succesful rebellion ten years before Tours and Gijon was reconquered in the 720 and the few muslims in the region expelled.

Once again: Northern Spain was never controlled by the muslims. The duchy of Cantabria was muslim-free, the basque country was semi-savage and the muslims never tried to invade it. Only Galicia was raided along a short time by muslims forces but they were berebers rebelds not controlled by the muslims leaders. The berebers rebelds soon ABANDONED Galicia (they were not even expelled by the christians you see her the real mulism interest for the North). Further South, the Duero valley and the northern half of the Central Plateau was a waste land not controlled by anybody and easily ocupied by the christians in the second half of the 8th century.

During his rule, Al-Ghafiqi succeeded in overcoming the rebellions and civil conflicts that erupted continually. He also had a greater success in confronting the army of Charlemange after he and his armies crossed the Pyrenees Mountains. The Muslims defeated Charlemange's army and many noblemen were killed. Thus, Al-Ghafiqi was appreciated and highly admired by those who lived at his time, and Abu Ja'far Al-Mansur, the Abbassid caliph, called him the "Hawk of the Quraish".
You are mixing the dates. Al-Ghafiqi was not contemporanean of Chalemagne since Al-Ghafiqi death was around 730 and Charlemagne was born around 740.

This Iron-fisted method to suppress, assimilate and expand was a key factor in Islams rapid expansion, they perfected it.
Ah, now i can see where are you coming from. In fact muslims didnt asimilate anybody. Christians in muslim controled Spain remained christian along many centuries after muslim invasion. Even in the 11th century most people in muslim Spain were christian.

Ah, now i can see where are you coming from. In fact muslims didnt asimilate anybody. Christians in muslim controled Spain remained christian along many centuries after muslim invasion. Even in the 11th century most people in muslim Spain were christian.
As far as I can tell the most contemporary source for these events, Tours 732 that is, is the Mozzarab Chronicle, i.e. the chronicles of the Christian Arabs in Spain of which there were a lot. The Arab language, literature, science etc. was attractive enough for a lot of people to adopt it, but becoming Muslim was never required.

Mott1: Generally, I see to little in the way of criticism of sources in what you're stating to feel it's entirely convincing.
It's one danmably tricky and spotty situation as far as sources go here. And using later historians evaluations, be they Christian, Muslim or Martian, is always going to be suspect. (A modern Muslim historian lamenting a supposed lack of Muslim coordination is likely to be just as dependant and derivative as a Christian historian chosing to intepret things within the traditional French 19th c. tradition of Chateubriand et al.)
Should we do this properly we need to start giving references to both primary and secondary sources.

I am pointing out that northern Spain being unIslamicized would have little effect on Islamic expansion further into Europe. Their were Muslim bases situated along the northern border of Spain ready to crush any rebellion.
In fact, rebellions were common but were dealt with swiftly and without mercy. As the Muslim historian Abdul Aziz Ashinnawy explains:

During his rule, Al-Ghafiqi succeeded in overcoming the rebellions and civil conflicts that erupted continually. He also had a greater success in confronting the army of Charlemange after he and his armies crossed the Pyrenees Mountains. The Muslims defeated Charlemange's army and many noblemen were killed. Thus, Al-Ghafiqi was appreciated and highly admired by those who lived at his time, and Abu Ja'far Al-Mansur, the Abbassid caliph, called him the "Hawk of the Quraish".
This Iron-fisted method to suppress, assimilate and expand was a key factor in Islams rapid expansion, they perfected it.


I really don't have much more time or interest in this, much like I didn't in your other thread. I find your impression of Iberian history to be entirely skewed and inaccurate. You still haven't got your head around certain basic realities of this area. Bringing in Charlemagne's time period doesn't further your argument in any manner. He led campaigns into Iberia. You're also confused about who Al-Ghafiqi was and when he lived. And you use him as an example of how Islam suppressed, assimilated and expanded? This is precisely what did not happen in Southern France and Northern Iberia. These areas were never assimilated or pacified under Muslim rule. Rebellions were never permanently crushed, they were constant, from Christians, and even Berbers and Arab princes, and it is clear Muslim power was limited from consolidating these areas in any longterm fashion. Their presence was fleeting. Btw Charlemagne's army was destroyed by Basques in the Pyrenees on their exit out of Iberia, not Muslims :lol: Anyway I'm repeating myself. Go back to writing your sophisticated essays :D

It is believed that if Martel's army failed that day, the rest of Europe would have succombed to Islam. In other words, saving Christianity.

I don't know why no-one else has picked up on this, since most of the other posters here are much better historians than I, but even if this battle was the one thing that prevented the Muslims from conquering France, it by no means saved Christianity since that religion was hardly confined to western Europe at the time. It was flourishing all over the place, not least in the lands controlled by the Muslims themselves, and beyond. This is an entirely unsubstantiated guess on my part, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if there were considerably more Christians in Persia in the eighth century than there were in western Europe.

OMG. You have not a clue about the muslim presence in iberia.

Settle down and stop with your silly antics. I would not be commenting on this topic if I didn't have a "clue" about Muslim history in Iberia.


Which cities? The only city controlled by the muslims in northern Spain was Gijon, ocupied in the 713 and they were not too succesful crushing uprisings since there was a major succesful rebellion ten years before Tours and Gijon was reconquered in the 720 and the few muslims in the region expelled.

Once again: Northern Spain was never controlled by the muslims. The duchy of Cantabria was muslim-free, the basque country was semi-savage and the muslims never tried to invade it. Only Galicia was raided along a short time by muslims forces but they were berebers rebelds not controlled by the muslims leaders. The berebers rebelds soon ABANDONED Galicia (they were not even expelled by the christians you see her the real mulism interest for the North). Further South, the Duero valley and the northern half of the Central Plateau was a waste land not controlled by anybody and easily ocupied by the christians in the second half of the 8th century.

Prior to al-Ghafiqi's invasion north of the Pyrenees into France, Muslim major holdings in northern Spain consisted of Zaragoza, Barcelona, Girona and a sizable portion of the Navaare. Muslim Raids in the non-controlled areas of Spain were so common that in time, those areas became depopulated and insignificant. The seat of Muslim power in Spain was al-Andalus, any rebellion in Muslim occupied Iberia was quickly quelched. Rebellions were a common occurance in Muslim controlled Spian in the 8th century and al-Ghafiqi was cruely effecient when dealing with the restive local populas.
You fail to understand that Muslims held a firm rule in Iberia regardless of the unoccupied areas and despite the common rebellions, al-Ghafiqi was confident in his hold of Spain to launch a full scale invasion into France.


You are mixing the dates. Al-Ghafiqi was not contemporanean of Chalemagne since Al-Ghafiqi death was around 730 and Charlemagne was born around 740.

I did not mix the dates, I only erred in the name. If you review my post I was quoting the Muslim historian Abdul Aziz Ashinnawy. The name should have been Charles Martel and not his grandson, but if you follow my post closely you would have understood that it was just a typo on my part and not an error of ignorance.


Ah, now i can see where are you coming from. In fact muslims didnt asimilate anybody. Christians in muslim controled Spain remained christian along many centuries after muslim invasion. Even in the 11th century most people in muslim Spain were christian.

And where exactly, am I coming from? Muslims didnt assimilate anyone? Explain how most of the entire Middle East prior to Islam was either Christian and Zoroastrian and within 4 to 5 centuries of Islamic conquest the Middle
East was a Muslim majority. Look up dhimmitude which is an intrical tennant of Islam and you will understand what I mean by assimilate.


So you find more reliable the islamic sources. Are you saying they know things other historians ignore?

No. Apparently you have trouble understanding me. I consider ALL sources before making my conclusion. Islamic sources, Western sources (both apologetic views). I do this so I can come up with an objective opinion.
By acquiring your history from only one apologectic view you only succeed in being dishonest to yourself. Maybe you should try investigating other sources other than what the PC academia teach at your schooling institution.

I really don't have much more time or interest in this, much like I didn't in your other thread. I find your impression of Iberian history to be entirely skewed and inaccurate. You still haven't got your head around certain basic realities of this area. Bringing in Charlemagne's time period doesn't further your argument in any manner. He led campaigns into Iberia. You're also confused about who Al-Ghafiqi was and when he lived. And you use him as an example of how Islam suppressed, assimilated and expanded? This is precisely what did not happen in Southern France and Northern Iberia. These areas were never assimilated or pacified under Muslim rule. Rebellions were never permanently crushed, they were constant, from Christians, and even Berbers and Arab princes, and it is clear Muslim power was limited from consolidating these areas in any longterm fashion. Their presence was fleeting. Btw Charlemagne's army was destroyed by Basques in the Pyrenees on their exit out of Iberia, not Muslims :lol: Anyway I'm repeating myself. Go back to writing your sophisticated essays :D

This is exactly the type of intolerant and immature behavior I expected from you. You represent the far left PC morons accurately.

Cheers

Explain how most of the entire Middle East prior to Islam was either Christian and Zoroastrian and within 4 to 5 centuries of Islamic conquest the Middle East was a Muslim majority. Look up dhimmitude which is an intrical tennant of Islam and you will understand what I mean by assimilate.

Actually the reason why there are so few Christians in the Middle East now is largely due to the invasions of Tamerlane in the fourteenth century. Tamerlane hated Christians and did his best to eradicate them. Before this point, the Church of the East had been doing pretty well (many Christians were very well off, with many becoming doctors - a number were personal physicians to the caliph). The church was declining to a certain degree in the couple of centuries before Tamerlane, which probably was due to dhimmitude. However, this effect was considerably less marked than you might think. It's important also to understand that dhimmitude wasn't intended to assimilate people. On the contrary, the whole point was that the other "People of the Book" didn't need assimilating. Most Muslim countries, right from the start, actively discouraged conversions among Christian and Jewish minorities. The Ottomans in the Balkans were a rare exception to this (and one reason why there's so much bitterness in that region).

Settle down and stop with your silly antics. I would not be commenting on this topic if I didn't have a "clue" about Muslim history in Iberia.
Prove it with your posts.
Prior to al-Ghafiqi's invasion north of the Pyrenees into France, Muslim major holdings in northern Spain consisted of Zaragoza, Barcelona, Girona and a sizable portion of the Navaare.
What portion of Navarre? BTW Zaragoza, Barcelona, Girona, is not northern Spain but Mediterranean Spain. As somebody pointed yet, Muslim western expansion was mediterranean centered. They never went further north far away of the Mediterranean coasts. OTOH muslim presence in Barcelona or Girona was so short i would not call it a very firm rule.

Muslim Raids in the non-controlled areas of Spain were so common that in time, those areas became depopulated and insignificant.
Rigorously false. Asturias, Cantabria, basque country and above all Galicia were well populated. Not if you know there was there a thing called Asturian Kingdom. As i said yet It was further south, on the northern half of the Central Plateau where the land was less populated.
The seat of Muslim power in Spain was al-Andalus,
To clarify some terms: All Muslim Spain was Al-Andalus.

any rebellion in Muslim occupied Iberia was quickly quelched. Rebellions were a common occurance in Muslim controlled Spian in the 8th century and al-Ghafiqi was cruely effecient when dealing with the restive local populas.
Once again, give us some examples of such implacably crushed rebellions to at least discuss on some basis.
You fail to understand that Muslims held a firm rule in Iberia regardless of the unoccupied areas and despite the common rebellions, al-Ghafiqi was confident in his hold of Spain to launch a full scale invasion into France.
So i fail to understand you are right. :lol:
I did not mix the dates, I only erred in the name. If you review my post I was quoting the Muslim historian Abdul Aziz Ashinnawy. The name should have been Charles Martel and not his grandson, but if you follow my post closely you would have understood that it was just a typo on my part
I dont care. Only pointing some of your nonsense.
And where exactly, am I coming from?
Have i to explain it? You are coming from a very biased POW influenced by the current world affairs. Not the best situation to discuss about history.
Muslims didnt assimilate anyone? Explain how most of the entire Middle East prior to Islam was either Christian and Zoroastrian and within 4 to 5 centuries of Islamic conquest the Middle
East was a Muslim majority. Look up dhimmitude which is an intrical tennant of Islam and you will understand what I mean by assimilate.
So you go 5000 km east and 5 centuries in the future to explain Iberia situation? To know something about ME history read Plotinus post. We were speaking about Al-Andalus. The fact is that Christians living in Al-Andalus were never "asimilated" nor obligated to convert, nor prosecuted in any way (even the Christian Spanish Kings sent his sons to study at the Al-Andalus universities).To find that you are looking for you will have to go some centuries later when some fanatical North African bereber tribes occupied southern Spain along some decades in the 12th century, in those years Al-Andalus caliphate had yet fallen and was totally divided in countless caothic Taifa kingdoms.

Battle of Tours (732 also called Battle of Poitiers).

Charle Martel, nicknamed The Hammer, halted the mulsim expansion at the Battle of Tours. It is believed that if Martel's army failed that day, the rest of Europe would have succombed to Islam. In other words, saving Christianity.

What are your thoughts on it? Do you share this opinion, do you view him as the Hammer of God (Christian's God in this case ;) ).

I doubt it. Had the Muslims really been able to conquer more of Europe, they wouldn't have let one battle stand in their way. They would've come back later with a new army and having learned from their previous mistake.

A more pivotal battle that may have "saved" Western Civilization was the Battle of Salamis, in which the Greeks defeated the Persians. You could also add the follow-up Battle of Plataea. Since the Greeks are the ancestors of all that can be considered "Western", prevailing in that war can be considered a triumph of Westernism.

The Greeks aren't the ancestors of "all that can be considered 'Western'"! They just get better press than the Goths, Scandinavians, Saxons, etc etc. However, I agree that the wars between Greeks and Persians probably had more long-term impact than those between Franks and Moors. By the same token, if you're talking about Islam and Christianity then the battles between Byzantines and Arabs were surely more significant than those in the west, if only because it's quite clear that, had Constantinople fallen at an early stage, the Arabs would have been quite capable of conquering a large territory in the Balkans and perhaps much of eastern Europe. I suspect that their capability for this would have been much greater than the Moors' ability to subdue the west, for the reasons already given.

The Greeks aren't the ancestors of "all that can be considered 'Western'"! They just get better press than the Goths, Scandinavians, Saxons, etc etc.

I'm sure you'd like to think so. ;)

Well, you certainly wouldn't recognise Europe if we removed the influences from that old Hebrew religion and a lot of the things the Germanic tribes got up to.

But since the synthesis of all these things was cooked up in the unfashionable Middle Ages, the Greek for some reason keep getting all the glory.:)

Thorgalaeg,

What have you proven with your posts other than being a proponant of PC history? Try engaging in civil disccusion and present a convincing argument, thus far you have accomplished niether.
The topic of this thread is The Battle of Tours being a macrohistorical event in Western civilization. You vigorously stress that it was not, other than ridiculing and mocking my counter argument you have shown nothing that substantiates your claim. Your entire argument hinges on northwestern Spain being free of Muslim rule. By this you seem to suggest that either the Moors were only interested in raiding European lands for loot and slaves rather than expand Muslim domain or that the Muslim presence in Iberia was insificient or too weak to further Muslim dominion into Europe. Thier is nothing that indicates either of these assertions, in fact history shows the opposite.

Lets look at the 'Kingdom of Asturia' which "I know nothing about". Pelayo, an aristocrat who fought with Roderic, king of the Visigoth, at the battle of Guadalete which the Muslims won an annihilating victory (711); he fled defeat and found safety in the far north. In 718 Pelayo was crowned 'king of the Asturias' which at the time was a fairly meaningless claim. Pelayo was able to defeat a local Muslim raid in a minor skirmish, known as the 'Battle of Covadonga' (722). He was thereafter able to consolidate a small mountain 'kingdom of Asturia' before his death in 737.

I'm sure we can agree that there has always been ethnic divisions in the Islamic forces between the majority Berber and minority Arab rulers in Iberia.
The fledgling Asturian kingdom owed its survival to this discrimination and division within the Islamic forces. The Berbers earned only one third as much as the Arabs when it came to distributing loot, slaves, and land acquired from raiding expeditions. When they were settled in the peninsula the Berbers tended to be allocated the mountain regions, while the lowland, much of it irrigated, was given to Arabs and worked by converts to Islam (Muwallads) or Christian dhimmis. An example of the effects of the division of Islam in Iberia do to discrimination is seen in the Berber leader Munuza, dissatisfied with the division of spoils, defected and set himself up in an independant principality in the vicinity of what is now Andorra that borderd Asturian lands. From here he conducted systematic raids north into Asturia, independant from the raids of the ruling Muslim body in Iberia.

It was Muslim raids that depopulated the entire northwest of Spain; the land that extended from the Cantabrian Mountains in the north to the Duero Valley in the south remained almost deserted for a long time. This is not to say that the small Christian regions north of this no-mans-land was free of Muslim raid. Jean Dalche, a French historian of medieval Castille wrote:

When spring arrived, Galicians, Asturians and Basques lived in expectation of the Sa'ifa (summer campaign) of the Muslims...the threat that they represented and the fear that they inspired were constant. The raiders pillaged, carried off livestock; anyone who fought and lost were massacred, men fit to bear arms were killed or sold into slavery, along with the women and children.

Muslim raiding expeditions brought them as far as the Cantabrian Mountains and they penetrated the mountainous area, from there the Muslims began launching raids in Asturias. For instance, their capture of Oviedo in 794, another larger raid followed by their withdrawl. This method of "attack and withdrawal" (al-karr wal-farr) was a common tactic in Islamic expansion, it accomplished three things: first to determine the enemy defences, second to pillage and attain booty to fund a larger raiding force and weaken the enemy, third to demoralise and strike fear in the hearts of the enemy. These successive raids were the prelude to a large invasion force that would ultimately conquer.
When al-Ghafiqi became emir of al-Andalus (731) he eliminated any existing dissention in the Islamic forces and kept a firm hold on Moorish unification. Prior to his promotion as emir, he was successful in quelching all rebellion and layed low any protests with draconian methods.
He then called for all able-bodied Muslims and freelance Visigoths to assemble in Pamplona for an expedition across the Pyrenees into Aquitaine. The perpetrators of the occasional raids into France had brought back news of riches and lands weakly defended.

There are many reason why the northern region of Spain remained free of Muslim rule, however it was not because the Muslims were too weak to conquer that area. The Asturians could only hope to defend their lands and wait out the constant Muslim raids, they were simply too few in numbers to expel Muslim rule in Iberia. Had Charles Martel fallen to al-Ghafiqi at the Battle of Tours, northwestern Spain would have certainly fallen as well.
The historian Stanley Poole, a Muslim apologist, confirms this in the diatribe of a Muslim chronicler:

From desperate mountain redoubts the small, barbarous kingdoms of northern Spain eyed with envy the wealth of the caliphate. None possessed a town with more than a thousand people, compared to the 50,000 of Moorish Saragossa and several times that number in Cordoba.
To realize their dreams of conquest they required manpower and weaponry – and this the Franks could provide.

Iberia was conquered in 710-716, massive Berber and Arab immigration and colonization followed the conquest. Most churches were converted to mosques. Although the conquest had been planned and conducted jointly with a faction of Iberian Christian dissidents that opposed the rule of the Visigothic king Roderic, it proceeded as the classical jihad with massive pillages, enslavements, deportations and killings. These Christian dissidents who looked at the Muslims as allies, soon learned the error of their mistake when Toledo, which had first submitted to Muslim rule in 712, revolted in 713.
The town was punished by pillage and all the notables throats were cut. In 730 the Cerdagne was ravaged and the bishop burned alive. In the regions under stable Islamic control, subjugated non-Muslim dhimmis were prohibited from building new churches or synagogues, or restoring the few existing ones that remained. Segregated in special quarters, they had to wear discriminatory clothing. Subjected to the heavy dhimmi poll taxes, the non-Muslim peasantry formed a servile class exploited by the dominant Muslim ruling elite. Any protests or rebellions were met with harsh reprisals such as mutilations to crucifixtions.


By the end of the 8th century, Muslim rulers introduced a rigorous Islamic jurisprudence as the predominant school of Muslim law. Charles Dufourcq illustrates the resulting religious and legal discriminations dhimmis suffered, and the incentives for them to convert to Islam:

A learned Moslem jurist of Spainish Christian descent, Ahmed ibn Hazm gives glimpses, in several of his juridical consultations, of how the freedom of the infidels was constantly at risk. Non-payment of the head tax paid by a dhimmi made him liable to all Islamic penalties; the offender could be sold into slavery or put to death. In addition, non-payment of the head tax by one or several dhimmis allowed Moslem authority to put an end to the autonomy of the entire community. Thus, from one day to the next, all Christians in the city could lose their status as a protected people through the fault of just one of them.
Furthermore, non-payment of the legal tribute was not the only reason for abrogating the status of the dhimmi, another was "public outrage against the Islamic faith" for example, exposing a cross or wine or even pigs for Moslems to see.
By converting to Islam, one would no longer have to be confined to a given district, or be victim of discriminatory measures or suffer humiliations...Furthermore, the entire Islamic law favored conversions. When an "infidel" became a Moslem, he immediately benefited from a complete amnesty for all his earlier crimes, even if he had been sentenced to death, even if it was for having insulted the Prophet, which is one of the worst crimes of all. A legal opinion given by a Mufti from al-Andalus is very instructive: a Christian dhimmi kidnapped and violated a Moslem women; when he was arrested and condemned to death, he immediately converted to Islam; he was pardoned, while being constrained to marry the women. The mufti specified that if the convert did not become a Moslem in good faith and secretly remained a Christian, he should be flogged, slaughtered and crucified.

It should not come as a surprise to note that in the 8th century Christians were the majority in the lands of al-Andalus and by the end of the 9th century they were reduced to 30% of the population.
Tamerlane the Muslim Mongol extended his lands through warfare and his campaign led him deep into the Middle East, however I don't believe he ever made it to Spain. It is unrealistic and presumptuous to attribute Tamerlane with all the credit for reducing the Christian population in Muslim lands.

It is unrealistic and presumptuous to attribute Tamerlane with all the credit for reducing the Christian population in Muslim lands.

I didn't. I was only talking about the Middle East, in response to your question, in which you only mentioned the Middle East.

Unimpressive as usual Mott. Your post is also much too long, perhaps you could synthesize your basic ideas more briefly? You certainly don't need to explain to me the history of Iberia, and in any case I would warn people who don't know better of your blatant bias.

You say there was nothing to indicate the Muslims were not interested in Northern Spain, and then go off on a tangent about Pelayo??? This is actually proof against your position. The kingdom of Asturias was not powerful. Also I find it interesting since you bring him up, since he is such a heavily romanticized Christian figure, just like Charlemagne against the Muslims (when his army was destroyed by Basques in the Pyrenees, not Muslims, however it was spun the other way around in the Chanson de Roland). Fact of the matter is Muslim power was never seriously consolidated in the north, and Pelayo's resurgence is embellished and romantic. Yearly raids were a ritual and a sign of Muslim disinterest and limitatation, not of infinite strength. Christians were not under the heel of Muslims in the north as you imply. There was more freedom, and like I've said a hundred times, these areas were never Islamicized as in the south. I don't understand why you think talking about a romanticized Pelayo strengthens your claim that Muslims were strong enough to conquer all Europe.

Talking about Gafiqi unifying Islamic dissension is a joke. Obviously you're either unaware of the massive Berber rebellions in the 740s, or you're just not mentioning it because it counteracts your claims. Berbers, much like Arabs, were never united even among themselves, let alone with each other because of the clan structure. So what if Gafiqi joined them together for a campaign measured in months, the real explosion happened just after him and was inevitable. This is why battles won and land conquered too far from Al Andalus would have disintegrated (not to mention Sunni/Shiite split, which is also based on clan conflict).

Essentially you want to argue that Berbers, ruled by a tiny set of Syrians, who hated each other and fought amongst their own ethnicities as well, in addition to the aforementioned massive rebellions, were ready to conquer Western Europe and make it Islamic for all time. Also your legal examples are aimless and biased. I guess you really want to win an argument. Cheers

Essentially you want to argue that Berbers, ruled by a tiny set of Syrians, who hated each other and fought amongst their own ethnicities as well, in addition to the aforementioned massive rebellions, were ready to conquer Western Europe and make it Islamic for all time. Also your legal examples are aimless and biased. I guess you really want to win an argument. Cheers

Since they managed to rule much of Spain for nearly eight centuries, that doesn't sound all that absurd.

My guess would be that they could have taken over much of southern France. However, I think the setback at Constantinople was more important.

Since they managed to rule much of Spain for nearly eight centuries, that doesn't sound all that absurd.

My guess would be that they could have taken over much of southern France. However, I think the setback at Constantinople was more important.

Sorry, I think the overall notion of Berbers ruling and consolidating all of Western Europe and then islamifying it is indeed stretching it. That's quite different from claiming they could have had more success in the peninsula or the Midi though, I'll give you that much, if that is indeed what you're claiming.

But I think the fact that they didn't really rule much of Northern Spain for hardly any period of time, or ever consolidate it is telling. And the 8 centuries you talk about are in Southern Spain across from the Maghreb. That is far from being all of Spain, and the degree of Islamic influence is clear in these different regions even today. And the Berber rebellions in 740 are pretty damn important, as was the establishment of Ummayad Caliphate. These internal divisions had decisive impacts on how Muslims approached Iberia and would definitely have affected any further gains into Southern France. I find it strange but yet am not suprised that people are so dramatically focused on the Battle of Tours.

I must say Mott1 argues like quite a lot of American historians around:

You present a thesis, argue it to the hilt, while selecting those feaures and facts that can will serve for this purpose, whilse disregarding alternative interpretations and everything that becomes aberrative within the framework you have presented.

It's not that uncommon.

Unimpressive as usual Mott. Your post is also much too long, perhaps you could synthesize your basic ideas more briefly? You certainly don't need to explain to me the history of Iberia, and in any case I would warn people who don't know better of your blatant bias.

You say there was nothing to indicate the Muslims were not interested in Northern Spain, and then go off on a tangent about Pelayo??? This is actually proof against your position. The kingdom of Asturias was not powerful. Also I find it interesting since you bring him up, since he is such a heavily romanticized Christian figure, just like Charlemagne against the Muslims (when his army was destroyed by Basques in the Pyrenees, not Muslims, however it was spun the other way around in the Chanson de Roland). Fact of the matter is Muslim power was never seriously consolidated in the north, and Pelayo's resurgence is embellished and romantic. Yearly raids were a ritual and a sign of Muslim disinterest and limitatation, not of infinite strength. Christians were not under the heel of Muslims in the north as you imply. There was more freedom, and like I've said a hundred times, these areas were never Islamicized as in the south. I don't understand why you think talking about a romanticized Pelayo strengthens your claim that Muslims were strong enough to conquer all Europe.

Talking about Gafiqi unifying Islamic dissension is a joke. Obviously you're either unaware of the massive Berber rebellions in the 740s, or you're just not mentioning it because it counteracts your claims. Berbers, much like Arabs, were never united even among themselves, let alone with each other because of the clan structure. So what if Gafiqi joined them together for a campaign measured in months, the real explosion happened just after him and was inevitable. This is why battles won and land conquered too far from Al Andalus would have disintegrated (not to mention Sunni/Shiite split, which is also based on clan conflict).

Essentially you want to argue that Berbers, ruled by a tiny set of Syrians, who hated each other and fought amongst their own ethnicities as well, in addition to the aforementioned massive rebellions, were ready to conquer Western Europe and make it Islamic for all time. Also your legal examples are aimless and biased. I guess you really want to win an argument. Cheers


First I want to make clear that I am not trying to impress anyone, neither is it my intention to claim victory on this argument. I am only expressing my opinion on this topic and to show a part of history that is grossly ignored or simply omitted.

I find it amusing how you warn people of my "blatant bias", there is nothing decieving or dishonest in my post. Are you afraid of people becoming aware of the 'other' truths of history that you are unwilling to accept? Why are you so determine to suppress the parts of history that are unagreeable to you? what do we stand to gain by burying the "lets not offend them" history deep in the closet?
You state that my legal examples are "aimless and biased", well they are not biased simply because they are not my examples. If you review my post these are the legal examples of the Muslim jurist Ahmed ibn Hazm, perhaps you should take it up with him, but hes been dead for over a thousand years so you missed your chance.:p
If you refuse to accept the credibilty of his view I can list name after name after name of Muslim scholars and jurists throughout history, whos views concur with Hazms.

To address the rest of your post, I breifly discribed the history of Asturia to demonstrate its lack of power prior to the Battle of Tours. This is not proof against my position rather it enforces my argument, I've shown that the weak state of the northwestern region of Spain made it susceptible to constant Muslim raids and that dissention in the Islamic forces at the time prior to the the Muslim invasion of France was its only saving grace.
Al-Ghafiqi unfiying Muslim dissention is not a joke, he was a great and charismatic leader although a poor battlefield tactician. He understood the restlessness of the Berbers and dealt with them fairly, he was also very aware of the strained relationship between the Berber and Arabs. Al-Ghafiqi allayed rebellioness in the Muslim ranks by offering new vistas of loot, particularly France.
The Berber Rebellions took place after al-Ghafiqis death and defeat at the Battle of Tours. Had he emerged victourious the Berber rebellions would not have taken place and Islamic domain would have stretched deep into Frankish territory. The untimely death of al-Ghafiqi was a major blow to Muslim al-Andalusa.

I must say Mott1 argues like quite a lot of American historians around:

You present a thesis, argue it to the hilt, while selecting those feaures and facts that can will serve for this purpose, whilse disregarding alternative interpretations and everything that becomes aberrative within the framework you have presented.

It's not that uncommon.

Verbose,

What interpretations am I disregarding? please show some examples and I will consider them. Although I can present the same argument you make to those who disregard the alternative I have provided.

Your entire argument hinges on northwestern Spain being free of Muslim rule. By this you seem to suggest that either the Moors were only interested in raiding European lands for loot and slaves rather than expand Muslim domain
Yep, exactly as they did at norhtern Spain and you endorsed it in your own post speaking about the seasonal Sa'ifa in norhtern Spain. :mischief:

or that the Muslim presence in Iberia was insificient or too weak to further Muslim dominion into Europe. Thier is nothing that indicates either of these assertions, in fact history shows the opposite.
Dont put words in your interlocutor mouth. That is a very ugly habit. That I said that muslim were never strong in NORTHERN spain. Neither before nor after Tours. And that the Tours battle has nothing to do with this fact. How history shows the opposite?

Lets look at the 'Kingdom of Asturia' which "I know nothing about". Pelayo, an aristocrat who fought with Roderic, king of the Visigoth, at the battle of Guadalete which the Muslims won an annihilating victory (711); he fled defeat and found safety in the far north. In 718 Pelayo was crowned 'king of the Asturias' which at the time was a fairly meaningless claim. Pelayo was able to defeat a local Muslim raid in a minor skirmish, known as the 'Battle of Covadonga' (722). He was thereafter able to consolidate a small mountain 'kingdom of Asturia' before his death in 737.
You obvisously did know nothing but it seems you have visited wikipedia these last days, congratulations! However you still lack in several points, so better read a bit more. To begin with, neither Pelayo nor his son were Kings. The tittle was for first time to his son in law, Alfonso I duke of Cantabria (a real aristrocat, it seems Pelayo was not) several years after Pelayo´s death.

Second Pelayo´s "mountain kingdom" included before his death, all Asturias, including coastal city of Gijon, the largest city in northern Spain during those years city far away from the Picos de Europa, (where it seems the rebellion began), and where the muslim governor was until he was expelled in 722; Cantabria and parts of Galicia. Its capital was in Cangas of Onís, since the firsts days, a city in the valley. Look at a map and you will see that it can hardly be called a "mountain Kingdom" in fact it was all Asturias, Cantabria and parts of Galicia. According to Galician historians (maybe a bit biased IMHO) it was basically a Galician kngdom leaded by Galician noblemen. In any case It is VERY naive and romantic to think that such political entity arose and expanded from nothing, alone against the (according to you) iron rule of the muslims in all spain.

Third as jonatas pointed yet we have here a puny christian force rebelling and expanding succesfuly against the mighty muslim rule in northern Spain a decade before Tours. So or the moors had not interest on the north and were very weak there, or the kingdom of Asturies was more important than you think. Sorry, you will have to chose one here. I would go with the first possibility.
You defend yourself of your own cotradiction with the revelation of that the Franks helped Pelayo (giving weapons to him you say, Stingers and M-16 i supose :lol:) Very weak argument indeed and BTW first time i heard such story IIRC. In any case it would be a dangerous journey since the franks and the Astur kingdom were in not very good relations with the basque tribes, so Astur kingdom was isolated from the franks.

The rest of your post is some sort of irrelevant pamphlet about as evil the muslims are and as Al-Andalus was hell in Earth for non-muslims (i wonder why it was full of christians and jews) i supose in order to prove that christianity was doomed had Martel lost in Tours. OMG! during Iberia conquest they killed Toledo notables becuse they rebelled!. They were monsters! :lol: If that is not having an agenda... First, Toledo or Salamanca are not northern spain, second it is specially amusing you choose Toledo to show muslim extermination of christians having in mind that Toledo was a city predominantly Mozarabe along all the muslim rule (until around 1080) There is even an special christian mozarabe liturgy practiced even today right there.

Further to that, it's worth pointing out that sometimes Christians did better in Muslim lands than they might have in Christian lands, paradoxically, since having non-Christian rulers protected them from meddling from the state or foreign churchmen. Spain is a good example of that, since the Mozarebs preserved the distinctive liturgies and other elements of Visigothic Christianity during a time when Rome was standardising Christianity throughout the rest of western Europe. This is why Spanish Catholicism has remained rather different from Catholicism elsewhere to the present day. Another example is iconophiles in the Middle East. John of Damascus couldn't have written several books defending the veneration of icons - at least, not safely - had Damascus not been in the hands of the Arabs at the time rather than the officially iconoclastic Byzantine empire. Even more strikingly, the Nestorian church was actually encouraged and protected by the Arabs, when Byzantines didn't even regard Nestorians as really Christian at all.

Yep, exactly as they did at norhtern Spain and you endorsed it in your own post speaking about the seasonal Sa'ifa in norhtern Spain. :mischief:


Dont put words in your interlocutor mouth. That is a very ugly habit. That I said that muslim were never strong in NORTHERN spain. Neither before nor after Tours. And that the Tours battle has nothing to do with this fact. How history shows the opposite?


You obvisously did know nothing but it seems you have visited wikipedia these last days, congratulations! However you still lack in several points, so better read a bit more. To begin with, neither Pelayo nor his son were Kings. The tittle was for first time to his son in law, Alfonso I duke of Cantabria (a real aristrocat, it seems Pelayo was not) several years after Pelayo´s death.

Second Pelayo´s "mountain kingdom" included before his death, all Asturias, including coastal city of Gijon, the largest city in northern Spain during those years city far away from the Picos de Europa, (where it seems the rebellion began), and where the muslim governor was until he was expelled in 722; Cantabria and parts of Galicia. Its capital was in Cangas of Onís, since the firsts days, a city in the valley. Look at a map and you will see that it can hardly be called a "mountain Kingdom" in fact it was all Asturias, Cantabria and parts of Galicia. According to Galician historians (maybe a bit biased IMHO) it was basically a Galician kngdom leaded by Galician noblemen. In any case It is VERY naive and romantic to think that such political entity arose and expanded from nothing, alone against the (according to you) iron rule of the muslims in all spain.

Third as jonatas pointed yet we have here a puny christian force rebelling and expanding succesfuly against the mighty muslim rule in northern Spain a decade before Tours. So or the moors had not interest on the north and were very weak there, or the kingdom of Asturies was more important than you think. Sorry, you will have to chose one here. I would go with the first possibility.

You are engaging in circular argument. Either you are having trouble understanding me or you refuse to see the point I have made.
Let me try to make this easy for you to understand. The northern kingdom of Asturia was not powerful, this is seen by the constant Muslim raids conducted by the Berber Munuza who was successful in conquering Asturian holdings such as Gjon. Munuza was the emir that was later expelled from Gjon and killed. The success of the Asturians at this point, had less to do with their strength than the oppertunities offered by the Muslims themselves.
Muslim enthusiasm for Jihad was greatly diminished in the early years following the conquest. As I have stated the Berbers, especially, were dissatisfied with Arab rule. Munuza was one of the dissidents who established an independant principality near the vicinity of the Asturias. That he was not alone in his feelings was shown by other revolts. If it had not been for this sentiment, the forces of Asturia would not have been able to expel Muslim rule in that region.
The Muslim rulers in Andalus could no longer tolerate a Berber prince reserving a large chunk of conquered lands for himself. At the same time they began laying siege to Munuzas domain from the south. With Munuza swept away there no longer was a buffer between Aquitaine north of the Pyreneese and the Muslims. The Asterian region north was also open game.
Only a few years later al-Ghafiqi became emir of Andalusa, he united the Muslims and established a large army. Did al-Ghafiqi opt to cross the Pyreneese into France with his army because he was disinterested in Asturian regions in the north? no. It is obvious the French lands were much more appealing and Asturia was not considered a threat.


You defend yourself of your own cotradiction with the revelation of that the Franks helped Pelayo (giving weapons to him you say, Stingers and M-16 i supose :lol:) Very weak argument indeed and BTW first time i heard such story IIRC. In any case it would be a dangerous journey since the franks and the Astur kingdom were in not very good relations with the basque tribes, so Astur kingdom was isolated from the franks.

If this is the first you "heard such a story", then I suggest you do some more research. This is not something I just made up, I quoted a Muslim Chronicler given by the historian Stanley Poole. The quote was intented to show how the Muslims of Andalus viewed the weakness of the Asturians, and that without the later support of the Franks would have surley succumbed to Muslim rule.


The rest of your post is some sort of irrelevant pamphlet about as evil the muslims are and as Al-Andalus was hell in Earth for non-muslims (i wonder why it was full of christians and jews) i supose in order to prove that christianity was doomed had Martel lost in Tours. OMG! during Iberia conquest they killed Toledo notables becuse they rebelled!. They were monsters! :lol: If that is not having an agenda... First, Toledo or Salamanca are not northern spain, second it is specially amusing you choose Toledo to show muslim extermination of christians having in mind that Toledo was a city predominantly Mozarabe along all the muslim rule (until around 1080) There is even an special christian mozarabe liturgy practiced even today right there.


The rest of my post is not irrelevant, You scoffed at the fact that Muslims did not assimilate those they conquered; that non-Muslims coexisted peacefully and enjoyed their lives under Muslim Rule. I demonstrate the opposite and provide historical testimony, and now you say its irrelevant and "biased". Just pull out that "biased" card whenever you find history disagreeable. Pretty convenient.

You are engaging in circular argument. Either you are having trouble understanding me or you refuse to see the point I have made.
Let me try to make this easy for you to understand. The northern kingdom of Asturia was not powerful, this is seen by the constant Muslim raids conducted by the Berber Munuza who was successful in conquering Asturian holdings such as Gjon. Munuza was the emir that was later expelled from Gjon and killed. The success of the Asturians at this point, had less to do with their strength than the oppertunities offered by the Muslims themselves.
Muslim enthusiasm for Jihad was greatly diminished in the early years following the conquest. As I have stated the Berbers, especially, were dissatisfied with Arab rule. Munuza was one of the dissidents who established an independant principality near the vicinity of the Asturias. That he was not alone in his feelings was shown by other revolts. If it had not been for this sentiment, the forces of Asturia would not have been able to expel Muslim rule in that region.
The Muslim rulers in Andalus could no longer tolerate a Berber prince reserving a large chunk of conquered lands for himself. At the same time they began laying siege to Munuzas domain from the south. With Munuza swept away there no longer was a buffer between Aquitaine north of the Pyreneese and the Muslims. The Asterian region north was also open game.
Only a few years later al-Ghafiqi became emir of Andalusa, he united the Muslims and established a large army. Did al-Ghafiqi opt to cross the Pyreneese into France with his army because he was disinterested in Asturian regions in the north? no. It is obvious the French lands were much more appealing and Asturia was not considered a threat.
Then the arabs were rather silly obviously becuase it was a certain threat judging for the quick Asturian expanding.

So, in the end all this "essay" to admit that the brief arab power in norhtern Spain was rather weak and that the short muslim "rule" there was caothic, filled with bereber and christian rebellions, as we have been claiming all the thread and you have been denying. :zzz: OTOH of course they were strong enough to expand until the Rhine. but n northern Spain they had a "gap" of interest and power, hadnt they? Very convenient. To end with the confusing point that muslim were but indeed were not interested on Spanish north, becuase France had more "appeal". (maybe becuase French wine is better :D )

BTW it is spelled "A-s-t-u-r-i-a-s"

If this is the first you "heard such a story", then I suggest you do some more research. This is not something I just made up, I quoted a Muslim Chronicler given by the historian Stanley Poole. The quote was intented to show how the Muslims of Andalus viewed the weakness of the Asturians, and that without the later support of the Franks would have surley succumbed to Muslim rule.
That "what if" is yours or of another 19th century historian? Speaking about facts, the key word here is "later". It was indeed much later than Pelayo times when Astur Kingdom (then called Astur-Leones kingdom) isolation ended and it received some punctual help from some French knights and from the rest of Europe. (i mean men, not technologially advanced clubs and maces, that was really funny :lol: )

The rest of my post is not irrelevant, You scoffed at the fact that Muslims did not assimilate those they conquered; that non-Muslims coexisted peacefully and enjoyed their lives under Muslim Rule. I demonstrate the opposite and provide historical testimony, and now you say its irrelevant and "biased". Just pull out that "biased" card whenever you find history disagreeable. Pretty convenient.
You demonstrated what? beyond some colorful anecdotes some ocurring in Salamanca or Toledo, a Mozarab city along near 400 years ----> THAT is not a anecdote.

No, there were a bunch of battles between the Muslims and French at that time, so it is pointless to say that just one was the turning point. It addition to that, if the Siege of Constantinople was successful at that time, the above battles would not matter anyways.

The Berber Rebellions took place after al-Ghafiqis death and defeat at the Battle of Tours. Had he emerged victourious the Berber rebellions would not have taken place and Islamic domain would have stretched deep into Frankish territory. The untimely death of al-Ghafiqi was a major blow to Muslim al-Andalusa.

This is the worst claim you've made yet. Are you aware that when I talked about the Berber rebellions of 740, I meant the Kharjite rebellions in North Africa (the Maghreb specifically)? This was indeed much bigger than just Al-Andalus. You are failing to see the big picture. Look at it from the broader perspective: the Berbers were seething under Arab rule from the very beginning, when originally many of them were Christian. The entire history of Berber/Arab interaction in Medieval times is of dissension, rivalry and even hatred for each other. This is not just in Al-Andalus, it is throughout North Africa. Gafiqi offering fair conditions for his Berber soldiers in Southern France was a smart move and necessary too, to build an army. But it had little impact on the millions of Berbers living in the Maghreb and did not erase the long history of Berber/Arab relations or their context at the time. The Kharjite rebellions were literally like a vulcanic eruption throughout all Berber homelands and were coming sooner or later. Gafiqi's military policy in southern France was quite simply not going to permanently stop this eternal rivalry (which had a very long history and build up) throughout the entire Maghreb, homeland of the Berbers.

The Kharjite rebellions are key because Islamic expansion is really broken up here. What had initially seemed as unlimited potential for expansion was in fact an illusion. The conquest of Western Europe was an illusion, because the Berbers hated the Arabs viscerally and knew them intimately, more than the Franks ever did. The Islamic empire we see stretching from Southern France to India at its peak was overextended and rife with dissension. Once the Berbers exploded against Arabs in North Africa, the concept of seriously expanding into France was over. It could never happen. In short, Islamic expansion had overreached itself and was experiencing internal problems much greater than simply a lost battle against a Frankish leader in Southern France (they had already recovered after a crushing defeat from Eudes to campaign again), or a Berber rebellion in Al-Andalus. They were experiencing civil war and the Caliphs were losing control of North Africa to the Berbers. How can you honestly not see this? Instead of just playing good Christians against bad Muslims in your analysis, consider the internal politics of the Islamic empire and its expansion, primarily the Berber/Arab dynamic with respect to Iberia and the Maghreb, which had a long build-up.

This issue is much bigger than Gafiqi or Martel, or even conflict between Muslim and Christian. It is about conflict between Berber and Arab, internal factors. Even hundreds of years later, when the Taifa states were being beaten back in the Reconquista, they only called upon the Berbers in pure desperation for survival. The hatred and animosity was still there. The Berber Almoravids and Almohads were hated by Muslims in Spain, just as it had been between Arabs and Berbers in the very beginning of the conquest of Visigothic Iberia. This dynamic was always there, and after the great eruption of the Kharjite rebellion in the Maghreb, the breaking up of the Islamic empire meant that unified expansion, which up until then appeared limitless, was actually over. Gafiqi, although an open minded general for his age, was not quelling any dissension in Berber homelands. These factors were much larger than any one person or general, whether Gafiqi or Martel. The expansive and unified power of Islam was doomed to break apart because of dissension such as existed between Berber and Arab (ethnic conflict), not to mention other divisions (Sunni/Shia/Kharjite for example - based on clan warfare first and foremost). But here, in our particular case, the Berber/Arab dynamic is especially important and underpins everything. Internal dissension is why "what if" victories would not have produced permanent results in terms of expansion, and why the "Berberification" of all Western Europe is an exaggeration.

There are other things I could respond to where I disagree with you, but this really is the main point. Internal factors, based on inability to unite different peoples together and clan warfare, inevitably led to new political realites including and especially establishment of Berber kingdoms in the Maghreb and subsequently the Ummayad dynasty in Al-Andalus (whom the Abbasids kicked out of the Near East), which meant the effective end of expansion into southern France.

the true battle between islam and christianity took place around Constantinople and on the battlefields in Asia Minor. Christianity was saved by Byzantines in Constantinople or Akroinon.

Except, as I've already said, Christianity was saved by no such people. Even if the Arabs had defeated the Byzantines and overrun Europe, Christianity would have been perfectly all right. It just wouldn't have been in charge. Remember that it was under Muslim rule that the Church of the East sent missions into Asia, which is why there were Christians in the hordes of Genghis Khan. Not to mention churches in India and Indonesia. There's also the small matter of Christianity in Ethiopia and other countries where the Arabs never got to. The idea that Christianity was confined to Europe, and that without Christian kings the religion would die out, is ridiculous.

You really believe Christianity would have spread all over the globe if the muslim would have conquered all of the Europe back then?

Did I say it would have spread all over the globe? No, and it probably wouldn't have. Christianity wouldn't have spread as much as in fact it has. But it would still have been perfectly OK. As I pointed out, the Christians who lived under Muslim rule were responsible for important missions into central and even eastern Asia well into the Middle Ages. Christianity would probably have done much better than Judaism did in real life, for example.

Even Judaism would have done better if the Muslims had conquered Europe. The Muslims didn't have the tendency to blame the Jews whenever anything went wrong, as the Christians so often did.

Even Judaism would have done better if the Muslims had conquered Europe. The Muslims didn't have the tendency to blame the Jews whenever anything went wrong, as the Christians so often did.

Yeah, they blamed christians instead.

Except, as I've already said, Christianity was saved by no such people. Even if the Arabs had defeated the Byzantines and overrun Europe, Christianity would have been perfectly all right. It just wouldn't have been in charge. Remember that it was under Muslim rule that the Church of the East sent missions into Asia, which is why there were Christians in the hordes of Genghis Khan. Not to mention churches in India and Indonesia. There's also the small matter of Christianity in Ethiopia and other countries where the Arabs never got to. The idea that Christianity was confined to Europe, and that without Christian kings the religion would die out, is ridiculous.

Perhaps it wouldn't die, but with tightening grip of muslim finance machine, it would soon become a minority. Of christianity in North Africa, nothing was left in a couple of centuries. In Middle East, purely christian countries are now 0-15% (at best) christian ones, except for Lebanon. It comes not only out of persecution and islamisation by too harsh taxes for non-muslims, but also out of emigration, though. If Europe and Byzantium were conquere, NA and ME christians would have limited possibilities of leaving.

As many agree, the desicive battle was fought in the east.Starting at ~630 AD Arabian armies conquered egypt,palestine and syria all at 10-20 years!At 8th century, Arabs kept the pressure both by land (minor asia) and sea (capture of crete and cyprus, 2 naval attacks on Constantinpole). Sicily followed soon after.

As a result, during the 700-900 AD minor asia was constantly under attack,Agean and Ionian teeming with saracen pirates,and even key cities of the empire like Thessalonika and Iconium were sacked.

However the Byzantines managed to survive and retake crete,sicily,cyprus and parts of syria and mesopatamia at the 10th century.

Potiers battle was important, but single.It was not followed by latest invasions proving that Arabs were rather overextended at west.
The eastern battlefields were close to the big important Arabic cities of Alexandria,Antioch and Baghdad and the conflicts lasted for about 400 years.

jonatas,

After reviewing this thread I just now discovered that you replied to my last post. You had made a few comments on some other threads regarding Berber rebellions and my failure to respond which left me puzzled. I had no idea what you were referring to. Now It makes sense.
Honestly I never came back to this thread because I lost interest in debating with people who were more interested in ridiculing me rather than arguing the topic. I suspected Thorgalaeg was a young kid due to his immature replies so his behaviour was not uncommon, however I did not expect the emotional outburst from you.
If you wish to continue this discussion I will be more than happy but I ask that you please refrain from resorting to ad hominem. I mean calling me a biased fundamental reactionary does nothing to substantiate your argument as I am sure you are already aware.
I apologize for the delay so without further ado I will begin.

This is the worst claim you've made yet. Are you aware that when I talked about the Berber rebellions of 740, I meant the Kharjite rebellions in North Africa (the Maghreb specifically)? This was indeed much bigger than just Al-Andalus. You are failing to see the big picture. Look at it from the broader perspective: the Berbers were seething under Arab rule from the very beginning, when originally many of them were Christian. The entire history of Berber/Arab interaction in Medieval times is of dissension, rivalry and even hatred for each other. This is not just in Al-Andalus, it is throughout North Africa. Gafiqi offering fair conditions for his Berber soldiers in Southern France was a smart move and necessary too, to build an army. But it had little impact on the millions of Berbers living in the Maghreb and did not erase the long history of Berber/Arab relations or their context at the time. The Kharjite rebellions were literally like a vulcanic eruption throughout all Berber homelands and were coming sooner or later. Gafiqi's military policy in southern France was quite simply not going to permanently stop this eternal rivalry (which had a very long history and build up) throughout the entire Maghreb, homeland of the Berbers.

The Kharjite rebellions are key because Islamic expansion is really broken up here. What had initially seemed as unlimited potential for expansion was in fact an illusion. The conquest of Western Europe was an illusion, because the Berbers hated the Arabs viscerally and knew them intimately, more than the Franks ever did. The Islamic empire we see stretching from Southern France to India at its peak was overextended and rife with dissension. Once the Berbers exploded against Arabs in North Africa, the concept of seriously expanding into France was over. It could never happen. In short, Islamic expansion had overreached itself and was experiencing internal problems much greater than simply a lost battle against a Frankish leader in Southern France (they had already recovered after a crushing defeat from Eudes to campaign again), or a Berber rebellion in Al-Andalus. They were experiencing civil war and the Caliphs were losing control of North Africa to the Berbers. How can you honestly not see this? Instead of just playing good Christians against bad Muslims in your analysis, consider the internal politics of the Islamic empire and its expansion, primarily the Berber/Arab dynamic with respect to Iberia and the Maghreb, which had a long build-up.

This issue is much bigger than Gafiqi or Martel, or even conflict between Muslim and Christian. It is about conflict between Berber and Arab, internal factors. Even hundreds of years later, when the Taifa states were being beaten back in the Reconquista, they only called upon the Berbers in pure desperation for survival. The hatred and animosity was still there. The Berber Almoravids and Almohads were hated by Muslims in Spain, just as it had been between Arabs and Berbers in the very beginning of the conquest of Visigothic Iberia. This dynamic was always there, and after the great eruption of the Kharjite rebellion in the Maghreb, the breaking up of the Islamic empire meant that unified expansion, which up until then appeared limitless, was actually over. Gafiqi, although an open minded general for his age, was not quelling any dissension in Berber homelands. These factors were much larger than any one person or general, whether Gafiqi or Martel. The expansive and unified power of Islam was doomed to break apart because of dissension such as existed between Berber and Arab (ethnic conflict), not to mention other divisions (Sunni/Shia/Kharjite for example - based on clan warfare first and foremost). But here, in our particular case, the Berber/Arab dynamic is especially important and underpins everything. Internal dissension is why "what if" victories would not have produced permanent results in terms of expansion, and why the "Berberification" of all Western Europe is an exaggeration.


You are preaching to the choir with regards to Berber revolts, I belive I have mentioned on numerous occasions the animosity that existed between the Berber and Arabs. There have been a dozen times within seventy years of Islamic conquest of al-Maghrib in the late 7th century that witnessed wholesale Berber uprisings and revolts. Many took place before and during the Muslim conquest of Iberia. The Berbers were known as a warlike and fickle people, this was due to the long history of experiencing defeat to conqueror after conqueror, from the Phoenicians of Carthage through Romans, Vandals, and Byzantines. The Berber uprisings are hardly surprising being that the Muslim invasion of Iberia came soon after conquering the Berbers. The Berbers were in their Islamic infancy, they experienced the process of Islamification during the invasion of Iberia. Musa ibn Nusayr the Muslim governor in the city of Kairouan Tunisia new very well the unpredictablilty of the Berber populus. In an attempt to avert more possible uprisings Musa offered promises of future reward in the lands of Iberia. This was a tactic that was used in the early stages Arab control of the Berbers during the Iberian invasions, avert any possible Berber dissent by diverting their attention to promises of loot and land newly conquered.

The Muslim invasion of Iberia depended on Berber sentiment, this is why al-
Gafiqi plays an important role in the success of Islamic dominance beyond the Pyrenees. I am aware of the Berber revolts in the Maghrib, I am aware of all of them, before and after al-Gafiqi's death. If al-Gafiqi would have emerged victorious at the Battle of Poitiers, his army both Berber and Arab would have remained intact regardless of the Berber revolts in the Maghrib. With the frankish army decimated, al-Gafiqi would have remained unopposed in the Frankish lands newly acquired.
The bottom line is despite the major Berber rebellions in the Maghrib in the 740's (which shortly ended in 747 when the Fihrids siezed power), and despite the utter defeat of al-Gafiqi and the Islamic army at the hands of the Franks, Muslims still maintained power and control over Iberia. Andalus was not weak.

Now I ask you to step back and try to see the big picture. Understand that insurgencies, revolts and even civil wars over succession of the Caliphite were common occurances since the begining of the Islamic movement. Despite these seemingly catastrophic and schismatic events within Islam, jihad still swept across the lands unbridled.
Try to understand that regardless of the Maghrib revolts of 740, al-Andalus was in Muslim control, was still the dominating power in Western Europe. Muslim Andalusian raids were still continuing unopposed despite the revolts and defeat of al-Ghafiqi's army. Now imagine what would have happened if al-Gafiqi emerged victorious and Charles Martel had been killed. Charles Army was all the Franks had, Charlemagne would not have been born.

I am not claiming that Muslims would have swept through all of western Europe if the Battle of Poitiers would have seen the defeat of the Franks. However I am suggesting that the outcome of the Battle of Poitiers had an enormous impact on western European history. One can only spectulate on what the historical change would have been had the outcome been reversed. Perhaps Spain would be a reflection of modern day Turkey.


There are other things I could respond to where I disagree with you, but this really is the main point. Internal factors, based on inability to unite different peoples together and clan warfare, inevitably led to new political realites including and especially establishment of Berber kingdoms in the Maghreb and subsequently the Ummayad dynasty in Al-Andalus (whom the Abbasids kicked out of the Near East), which meant the effective end of expansion into southern France.

Understood, however internal disunity plagued the Islamic movement since the death of Muhammad, Jihad still continued unimpeded. Umar the second righteously guided Caliph was assassinted, Jihad still continued. Uthman the third righteously guided Caliph was assassinated that led to a schism within Islam which gave birth to the Shia sect, Jihad still continued. Time and time again internal dissention plagued the Islamic movement yet Muslims still managed to sweep across North Africa and Iberia to the West and deep into Hind and to the Gates of Byzantium and beyond to the East. They did this despite the internal dissentions and the "problem" of over extending themselves.

Honestly I never came back to this thread because I lost interest in debating with people who were more interested in ridiculing me rather than arguing the topic. I suspected Thorgalaeg was a young kid due to his immature replies so his behaviour was not uncommon, however I did not expect the emotional outburst from you.
If you wish to continue this discussion I will be more than happy but I ask that you please refrain from resorting to ad hominem. I mean calling me a biased fundamental reactionary does nothing to substantiate your argument as I am sure you are already aware.
:lol: You are the typical poster that engage in tantrums and leave when he seems his weak arguments defeated and have not real answers. I have seen it from you in many other threats (about this same topic of course, you are the most monothematic poster i have ever seen with a serious obsession about islam) So dont expect that for delaying your answer some months i will not be here to answer your funny insults. :D

...still waiting for some real answers to my last post...

:lol: You are the typical poster that engage in tantrums and leave when he seems his weak arguments defeated and have not real answers. I have seen it from you in many other threats (about this same topic of course, you are the most monothematic poster i have ever seen with a serious obsession about islam) So dont expect that for delaying your answer some months i will not be here to answer your funny insults. :D

...still waiting for some real answers to my last post...

...and I'm still waiting for a real argument from you...

You want to ridicule, mock and laugh it up mr. jokey? then I suggest you take your comedy act to the Humor & Jokes forum.

:lol::lol::lol: See, I can post lol faces for absolutely no reason too, but when I want to act like a clown I make sure I take it to the joke forum.

So, your fraguile ego feels offended by the :lol: ? Inferiority complex too? Better stop your blah blah blah, it is embarrasing. Discuss the posts not the poster. :rolleyes:

...still waiting...

Was it a major turning point? No. But it was still a turning point none the less. I don't think Christianity would have been annihilated if they had lost, I think it would have survived, it would just not have achieved the level of power that it did. From what I understand, the Moors were pretty accepting of Christians. But I could be wrong.

Mott

I think we just have to accept that we do not agree. At this point I have already basically stated my position and fundamentally disagree with some of your assertions about Iberian history.

Yes the Arabs had to pay Berbers in some form to use them in their armies, of course. And the Berbers were warlike and useful to employ in this manner. However this never erased the fundamental ethnic tension which existed between the groups and which led to the splitting up of the Maghreb. You say the bottom line is that Muslims still controlled Iberia in spite of the Berber rebellions and Frankish victories (I would include Eudes here as well). First, that is precisely because Iberia experienced a power vacuum. After the Visigoths collapsed so easily, there was little opposition directly in the peninsula. In spite of this the Northern part was never properly consolidated or islamicized (A testament to the limitations of their power), even after the defeat from Martel. (Remember you initially argued the reason they did not do so was because they were just concentrating on penetrating deeper into the West. Well they were not able to consolidate the Peninsula afterwards either.) So essentially what you see is Arab/Berber armies walking unopposed into the peninsula and only starting to find real opposition in Southern France. And in spite of this, Northern Iberia was not Islamicized. So I question precisely what you mean by saying Al-Andalus was strong. While it did not collapse on itself (unlike the Visigothic administration), it clearly did have its limitations. I also would not necessarily call it the most powerful political unit in Western Europe. Really its peak was later in the Caliphate of Cordoba, and even then while hugely influential, it wasn't what I would call the strongest European power, not in the sense of directly controlling the rest of Western Europe. The Caliphate of Cordoba was certainly a power to reckon with though and received tribute from many Christian nobles, in addition to have enormous cultural prestige. However they were not able to islamicize the rest of Western Europe and lived through precarious moments themselves.

About the big picture- I know very well that Arab society was by nature divisive, based on the clan system as it was. I stated this very early on in the thread. They were always feuding. The Berbers operated according to the clan system too. However there were two kinds of tension: the inherent tension arising from the clan system and then the fundamental ethnic tension between the two Islamic groups in the Maghreb and Iberian peninsula. So while I obviously accept that the clan system was divisive by nature and not really an impediment to expansion, I think you still fail to fully appreciate how the ethnic tension was the real limitation on power and how key it finally was to limiting expansion into Western Europe by the changes in the power structure it wrought. It was not merely clan warfare, nor was it just schismatic. Many of the Berbers would no longer fight under the Arabs or answer to them, in fact they would fight against them. Overarching unified expansion was simply no longer possible as Arabs lost their strict hold on the Maghreb and the political structure was broken down and being redefined. And again you want to interpret Andalusian raids as signs of strength, when it fact they were signs of limitation. The places they were raiding were not islamicized.

You also ask me to speculate on a what if scenario. I would simply point to what in fact did happen. When the Berbers definitively broke against the Arabs in the Maghreb (Well the Ummayads- and I maintain this was coming sooner or later because of ethnic tensions, otherwise you are essentially positing that this unified Islamic caliphate would last eternally in spite of these tensions), the longterm ability to hold onto Southern France would be fatally weakened because you would no longer have a unified caliphate but rather a bunch of smaller Berber kingdoms already opposed to Arabs and some nominally loyal and smaller Arab dynasties with far lesser designs on the rest of Western Europe, aside from their direct neighbours across the Pillars of Hercules. Considering that the Maghreb and Al-Andalus (or at least Andalusia) do form a sort of geographic region, this is not even necessarily remarkable. Regardless, the farther you get from the Berber center of power (the Maghreb), the more tenuous their grasp would become. Southern France would already be far enough to provide serious longterm problems for them. Anything beyond that and they would be seriously challenged soon enough. The Maghreb was fighting with itself. The point is eventually Islamic power, or at least a good part of it, shifted back to the Berbers in the Maghreb, and that is who would probably be running things in your hypothetical situation sooner or later (longterm). In any case you would probably be dealing with smaller, harder to unite kingdoms, eventually.

On your final paragraph, again you are conflating clan tension with ethnic tension. The serious Jihad in Southwestern Europe stopped precisely with the establishment of some independent Berber kingdoms in the Maghreb and change in Berber/Arab dynasties which held power (Well you obviously think it was Martel, but this ignores internal factors which had already menacingly surfaced and clearly prevented further unified attempts after the explosive rebellion of the 740s- and remember Islamic armies had regrouped after Eudes). The real Jihad did not continue unimpeded in the West. Insignificant border raids (which in fact delimited the extents of Islamic power in the peninsula) or piracy do not count Mott. And later incarnations of Berber dynasties (Almohads and Almoravids) which briefly swept into the peninsula in a blaze of glory to counteract the reconquista left as quickly as they rode in. So yes, serious Jihad (by which I mean permanent) was effectively impeded in the West with the eventual (and inevitable I argue) establishment of some Berber kingdoms independent from Arab rule and shaking up of the Maghreb as a direct result of ethnic division and over-extension. This independence changed the internal politics of the region (the Maghreb) at the time and ended the dream of endless expansion into the West I think. I realize this history gets quite complicated and its hard to encapsulate. But there was real dissension sown into the Maghreb and I think the Berber rebellions really shook the region up, to the point where focus was moved from further expansion onto internal matters. That is my point anyway and I'm quite happy to leave it at this, because I think we are just going to start repeating ourselves, and this is quite time consuming.

edit: Ultimately I would like people to consider these things instead of jumping too easily to an oversimplified or ignorant Christian vs. Muslim explanation. These are valid points I bring up, but I don't know whether I care to argue them much more.

Mott

I think we just have to accept that we do not agree. At this point I have already basically stated my position and fundamentally disagree with some of your assertions about Iberian history.

edit: Ultimately I would like people to consider these things instead of jumping too easily to an oversimplified or ignorant Christian vs. Muslim explanation. These are valid points I bring up, but I don't know whether I care to argue them much more.

Now that the calibre and quality of your presentation truly shines you no longer are interested to continue? How disappointing
Actually jonatas, It seems to me that our understanding of Iberian/Andalusian history is not entirely antithetic.
I don't believe our disagreement lies in our evaluation of Iberian history, I think our disagreement has more to do with how we approach that time period.
I'll elaborate on this but allow me to breifly address some of your points first.

1. When I stated that Andalusia was the powerhouse in western Europe at the time of the al-Gafhiqi led invasion of Gaul, I meant in terms of military might. The Islamic military surpassed the Franks in terms of numbers, technology, wealth and provision. The Muslim military was simply far surperior to that of the Franks or any other military power in Europe at that time.

2. You stated that the Muslim-free region of northwestern Iberia indicated the limitation to Muslim power in Iberia. Yes, that region was free of Muslim rule. However, as I have presented in prior posts, this region remained free of Muslim rule only because of the disunity the Muslim ranks were experiencing at that time. It was not an indication of the limitation or weakness of Islamic military might. Again this Muslim-free region was being continously raided even during Muslim disunity, demonstrating that the Austerian region was in itself, weak and limited in power.

3. You mention that enthusiam for jihad greatly dimmished following the defeat of Gafhiqi's military expedition and the coming of the 740 Maghrib revolts. I agree, further attempts at a culminative jihad across the Pyrenees was certainly detained inlight of these events. That is percisely why I stress that Gafhiqi's failed military expedition was a macrohistorical event.
you seem to suggest that even if Gafhiqi emerged victorious and annhilated the Frankish army (which was the Franks only standing army), the expedition would have nevertheless resulted in failure because of the revolts of the Maghrib. I don't see how you can determine the Maghrib as the Andalusian lifeline when al-Andulas was a self sustaining entity. If anything the Maghrib was an isolated entity at the period of the sporadic revolts, even so, trade still continued.

4.The final point you make is perhaps central to your argument. You introduce two distinctions to Islamic disunity by catagorizing them as clanish feuds and ethnic feuds. The latter being the factor which substantiates your argument. Essentially I have no problem with your modus, but you present it as a primary function. You seem to indicate that regional events that transpired were intrinsically determined by those conditions.
What I mean is that your observation of that time period is bereft of a fundamental social aspect which can be conducive to an obtuse understanding.
Our disagreement in this discussion is percisely the same as the disagreements we've had on other historical discussions. Our examination of history differs, I examine history by observing religion, theology and the belief in the divine sacred as a primary condition in the social structure of that time, were you seem to distance yourself from that very notion. You seem to approach history by excluding theology as if it had little consequence on human behavior.

The ethnic divisions between the Arabs and Berbers did exist at that time, we both agree on that. Thier were instances were this disunity led to the establishments of individual principalities (or independant clans). However despite the ethnic and clanish disunity, they ultimately shared a common belief in the divine sacred, they shared the belief in a theological doctrine that surpassed any clanish or ethnic rivalry. In this divine unity they set aside rivalries to confront a common enemy, they set aside rivalries to persue the divine mandate of advancing Islam. There are very few exceptions to this norm.

An example of how a society driven by theology can impact clanish rivalry is shown when the Caliph Uthman was assassinated. Accession of the caliphate was disputed between two figures, Ali and Muawiya. Civil war erupted and the armies of both men clashed, as the battle progressed it became clear that Muawiya's forces were going to be defeated. A general in Muawiya's army then commanded his remaining forces to affix pages of the Quran on their spears, upon seeing this Ali's soldiers dropped their weapons and refused to fight. After the initial confusion an agreement was reached without further bloodshed. Ali was later assassanated and Muawiya established the Umayyad dynasty.

An example of how theology overcame ethnic division is demonstrated at the the time of the Islamic invasian of the Berbers. In the late 7th century the Arab Muslim Ukba ibn Nafi led jihad into North Africa sweeping clear across the Maghrib killing and looting everything in his path until he reached the Atlantic near Agadir, Morocco. Upon reaching the surf he shouted "Allah I call you to witness that if my advance were not stopped by the sea I would go still further!".
Aside from his invasion of the Maghrib and barbarous actions being clearly driven by belief and justified by the mandates of Allah, he also infuriated the Berbers. On his return journey to his recently conquered city of Kairourn, he and his army were waylaid and killed by a Bereber force. Despite the later revolts of the conquered Berbers, Ukba's tomb became a holy pilgrimage site for devout Muslim Berbers, A holy site dedicated to a man responisible for killing and conquering their own ethnic people. Ukba's tomb exists today in a mosque and is still considered a Muslim pilgrimage site.

You state that viewing the Muslim Iberian invasion as religious movement is ignorant, I disagree. I believe that viewing the Islamic invasion of Iberia other than what it was is ignorant. Although I do agree that the Battle of Poitiers was not a clash of Islam versus Christianity, atleast not on the part of the Franks. The Franks had no concept of what Holy War was at the time, They were simply defending their land and holdings from a foriegn invader. However to the Muslims, it was nothing but the divine mandate to advance Islam, Holy War.

In any case agree that we will not agree on this, I don't think well ever come to an agreement until you can truly appreciate a perspective which includes theology and its role in the social structure of that time.