Battle of Tours was one of the History good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on October 10, 2004, October 10, 2005, October 10, 2006, October 10, 2007, October 10, 2008, October 10, 2009, October 10, 2010, and October 10, 2011. | |||||||||||||
Current status: Delisted good article |
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
|
||
Adds nothing to the article. Did someone here have him as a professor and just wanted to include him to get him in a Wiki article? Hansen isn't an authority in any subject, let alone Medieval European battles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.249.195.72 ( talk) 22:18, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Fri August 31st, 2007 I am reading Ivan Gobry ‘s book : Charlemagne, fondateur de l’Europe (Edition du Rocher) On page 22, Ivan reports: Cette memorable journee fut celled u Samedi 17 Octobre 733. La date traditionnelle de 732, apprise par tous les ecoliers ne figure que dans la Chronique de Moissac, redigee au IX siecle. Les autres auteurs indique celle de 733. Les historiens arabes celle de l’an 115 de l’hegire qui est l’equivalent de 733. He insiste that Charles could not have enrolled his army a year earlier and that Charles was reported to strategically waited for the “Sarrasins” to waste their power and ambition enjoying their plunder and the women they raped. PierreC9
In order to uphold the quality of Wikipedia:Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the requirements of the GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force. Unfortunately, as of November 16, 2007, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAN.
Although the article currently has a good number of inline citations, several sections throughout the article are lacking sources, including multiple quotes. Go through the article and add an inline citation for any statement that a reader may question over its verifiability. If you can find sources online, feel free to include those, although book sources are always great, which this article uses a lot of. However, the rest of the article looks fine considering meeting the broad, NPOV, and image requirements. I have listed the many statements that should be sourced, and if sources are added, please do consider renominating the article again.
Need inline citations:
Links/page numbers that should be converted to inline citations:
Again, if you address these issues and check the article against the rest of the GA criteria, consider renominating the article at WP:GAN and let me know and I'll look it over again (so you can avoid the current month+ backlog). If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at WP:GA/R. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article's history to reflect this review. Regards, -- Nehrams2020 10:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps there should be details as to where the battle took place, in a separate section and not having to scatter landscape information throughout the article? -- Sunsetsunrise ( talk) 01:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
In the "background" section...the first paragraph. It is definitely not objective, but is there a reference for it? the_ed 17 18:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
This article needs some cleaning up. How many times is it necessary to repeat that the Franks held the high ground, that they had no cavalry, that the Umayyad had not scouted the North, etc.? Eulalie Écho ( talk) 18:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Was reading through the article and noticed that at one point it says that one of Charles biggest advantages was his professional army, then a few paragraphs it states that he had no standing army. This seems a bit contradictory to me, does anyone else think so? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.91.9.215 ( talk) 07:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, I guess both notations professional army and not standing army are off realism. To my opinion, Charles Martel was one among the various feudal lords of the 'French' region, who managed to persuade the rest of the lords that the muslims were an actual threat, so they all joined their armies - consisted of farmers - to opose the muslims under the rule of Charles Martel (grantfather of Charlomagne). Although the historical time was that of dark ages, army officers and generals, were practicing the phalanx (column) style of combat, which they inherited from the Romans who inherited it from the Greeks. The general idea (which is the western style of combat) is not to brake your rank and the whole column to fight as one man. This way, the enemy cannot overwhelm you. The Eastern (Asian) style of combat, depends on the bravery of every single soldier who attacks the enemy based on his courage. Yet couragious, but without any sufficient plan, the muslims were doomed to lose the fight. The reason they expanded so far until then, was because no serious army opposed them till then. So, all Charles Martell had to do, was to train the farmers to keep their lines and stay cool while the muslim horsemen were attacking. Throughout history, the Europeans have lost some battles of course, but in general, everytime they fight against Asians, or Africans, or the American Aztecs etc, they win, because of their combat style. Stated by redflaw — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.73.252.106 ( talk) 11:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
( Nhoepner ( talk) 07:54, 10 April 2016 (UTC)) Actually, a professional but not standing army is not a contradiction at all. However, relating it to a Greek phalanx, via Roman tradition, is an error.
According to the Ripuarian Law (cited in [1]) the Franks assembled their army either in March (a "Marchfield") or in May (a "Mayfield") by summoning all the free men to gather at a specific place. Most, rather than going to war, paid to equip others. It truly took a village. Fully equipping a Frankish warrior cost the equivalent of thirty-five cows for an infantryman, or forty-seven for a cavalryman. This system provided the Frankish kingdoms with essentially a professional army because those being paid for by the others were the same people, year after year. Most people really did not want to get involved in medieval combat - the willing minority were the same tough, belligerent people every time. Thus, when each nobleman led out his contingent of the army, he "did not take 100 different men each year but had his fixed unit, of which he knew that they would do him credit" ( [2]). These were lifelong professional warriors. They knew each other, campaigned together every year from spring to late fall, and trained individually and in smaller groups through the winter. So Charles Martel did NOT have to "train the farmers to keep their lines and stay cool." There were no farmers involved. Tactics is another thing. It was not really a "phalanx." The Frankish method was in transition from earlier Germanic methods, in particular adopting more cavalry. Martel's army at Tours was a mix that was normal at the time. The infantry in the attack fought in a form of "wedge" formation called the "boar's head," really more of a square than a wedge. In the defense, they formed a shield wall. The Franks in particular used throwing axes (the famous fancisca) as well as spears and swords. Martel's army also included a significant heavy cavalry arm, something for which the Franks were known all the way back to the time of Plutarch ( [3]). Armies were small, a force of ten thousand would have been a large army in those days. So, both Martel and al-Ghafiqi likely showed up with no more than 10,000 to 15,000 men each. Al-Ghafiqi probably had a higher proportion of cavalry, but he had infantry as well. His mistake was attacking uphill into Martel's shield wall. He launched three separate attacks, was repelled three times, and then a raid by part of Martel's cavalry on the Muslim camp caused al-Ghafiqi's men to withdraw without orders in order to save their loot and property. This gave Martel the opportunity to unleash his cavalry and put the Muslim army to flight. The idea that the "Eastern style of combat" required courage from each soldier, while the Western way did not, is nonsense, as is the idea that "Eastern" armies were somehow lacking in organization or a plan and were thus "doomed" when facing a Western force. They crushed the Visigoth kingdom in Spain in a single campaign. They conquered almost the entire Eastern Roman Empire, invaded Italy periodically, and conquered and ruled Sicily from the eighth to the eleventh centuries. They fought Charlemagne to a standstill in 777. To regard them as somehow flawed, or doomed, etc because of this one battle at Tours is myopic at best. Nhoepner ( talk) 07:54, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
References
"Charles's grandson, Charlemagne, became the first Christian ruler to begin what would be called the Reconquista from Europe."
I think Pelayo and his heirs get the honors in that area. Cranston Lamont ( talk) 20:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, its correct. Pelagius of Asturias was the first. Fixed. JamesOredan ( talk) 20:00, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
The illustration at right, used in the text, has been provided with a spurious date in Internet links, which would make it an illustration of this event. I have corrected its caption and repositioned it where it illustrates Christian and European views (in 1822-27) of Saracen invaders, which have colored the traditional historical assessment of the battle of Tours.-- Wetman ( talk) 23:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
== Vouneuil sur Vienne == (intelligible)
I was there at the site yesterday. To name V s V is not correct. It is also missleading. I drove to V s V and had to find out after searching a lot and asking a french man (imagine, how difficult that is, since I hardly speak french) that the monument is actually north-west of Montgame.
This map is approximatelly correct:
http://www.maplandia.com/france/poitou-charentes/vienne/chatellerault/moussais-la-bataille/
Moussais la Battaile is a small place with 3-4 old hauses, which are ruined, but there are people living. The houses of course are not from the time of the battle. The actual battle was between the monument and th M la B of today. M la B is approximatelly the resting place of Abdul Rahman.
-- 83.200.42.105 ( talk) 22:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Is it really necessary for Gibbon's to have his opinion 'validated' by saying basically Gibbons (and every historian that ever lived and mattered) said that...? Soxwon ( talk) 17:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
"(see Postmodernism)" starts a paragraph. This needs elaboration or it needs to be removed. patsw ( talk) 17:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Simply saying UNKNOWN due to lack of surviving contemporary records or reliable secondary sources seems best. TBH this historically battle is important mainly for the death of the Islamic leader and withdrawal of Islamic expeditionary forces to the well established territory of Islamic rule on the Iberian pennisula. Details of the battle do not impact subsequent battles. The death of the Islamic commander ended his military expedition. So condensing the article to these actual known facts is probably warranted.
All later historians are in fact just speculating and theorizing about details. The perceived conflicts in surviving contemporary general descriptions may not even exist. It is quite possible that Islamic forces were in fact both superior in numbers in the region BUT also severely outnumbered at the point of engagement. Logistics of living off the land and cavalry raiding styles might well have dispersed and scattered numeric advantage and limited coordinated response to an unexpected encounter. This "dispersed and unprepared" situation is additionally suggested by the ambush of the main camp in the rear. Basically Asian-Islamic style cavalry mobs were good at gathering widespread forces and focusing on attacking known locations once orders were disseminated. But those same forces might not even receive orders to gather for timely defense against unexpected attacks on the vanguard, command group, or main camp. This "unexpected defense" situation would also tend to lead to poor records of the battle by the Islamic side as most "survivors" probably were not near the actual battle. So realistically we should not expect to know many details if the Franks did not record or preserve their perspective. 24.162.54.29 ( talk) 20:43, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
The mozarabic chronicle a Contemporary source which describes the battle in greater detail than any other Latin or Arabic source states that the franks outnumbered the muslims and were better equiped and that agrees with muslim account and common sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaid almasri ( talk • contribs) 20:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
"In the blink of an eye, they annihilated the Arabs with the sword. The people of Austrasia, greater in number of soldiers and formidably armed, killed the king, Abd ar-Rahman" - Wolf (trans), Chronicle of 754, p. 145 ( Zaid almasri ( talk) 22:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC))
you can check all the previous campaigns of the caliphate in that region and you will find that the armies were very small in size so how come they suddenly became that large despite several defeats. Abdul Rahman also left a large portion of the army to garrison the captured cities.( Zaid almasri ( talk) 22:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC))
it is also a good idea to notice that the size of the army that crossed from north africa and conquered iberia (in 711) only 21 year before the battle of tours were 7000 men only( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariq_Ibn_Ziyad) , so the claims by some sources that the caliphate army were in hundreds of thousands or even tens of thousands is completely unrealistic. ( Zaid almasri ( talk) 22:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaid almasri ( talk • contribs) 22:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
There's a great deal of discussion of the army about Martel, and rightfully so. Were the women and children protected by the surrounding troops? Sometimes women get themselves in to the middle of battles, with delusional thought of turning attention away and averting something thought childish game, only to see it was a full on attack?
Removing a sourced quote from a major 20th century figure regarding the macrohistorical importance of the article subject in a section on 20th century views of its macrohistorical importance is both asinine and vandalism. "Well durr I don't think Hitler counts as a historian durr" is not a valid counterpoint. -- NEMT ( talk) 02:49, 10 October 2010 (UTC) To expand - the section covers "historical and macrohistorical views" in the context of military and political influence in Europe. Demonstrating how the battle shaped opinions of significant figures in contemporary and modern history should be one of the primary goals here. Dismissing anyone whose primary notability is not as a historian, despite historic significance and a background in the subject matter, is a disservice to anyone looking to gain a comprehensive knowledge of modern historical views of the article subject (i.e.: the reason most would seek out this section of the page). -- NEMT ( talk) 05:09, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
In section 4.2 it says: 'Contemporary Arab and Muslim historians and chroniclers were much more interested in the second Umayyad siege of Constantinople in 718, which ended in a disastrous defeat.' There are no extant histories by 'Arab and Muslim historians' of that date, and even were there there should surely be a citation there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.63.121 ( talk) 14:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
There is a lengthy section on the size of the armies, ranging from x to y, with figures for each side going as high as 80.000. Then, it says "Charles Martel's force lost about 1,500 while the Umayyad force was said to have suffered massive casualties of up to 375,000 men". Besides this number being completely out of proportion to the size of the army, it would mean that each Frank would have to have killed 250 men!!!!! Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia ( talk) 23:10, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
They probably ment 37,500 Rowanis12 ( talk) 16:12, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Also casualty figures could be inflated by non-combatants etc slaughtered in the ambush of the Islamic main camp in the rear area. Blending in such counts was more common in "less civilized times". 24.162.54.29 ( talk) 22:26, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
I think that this article may be having a POV issue. It seems that in the last few months, an Arab/Islamic point of view, especially in regards to the infobox, has been injected into this article, particularly now that the infobox is essentially according to "Islamic sources" with no exception. I think it would be in the article's best interests that some of these recent edits be either verified, or corrected and re-cited.-- L1A1 FAL ( talk) 21:13, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
The article is clearly biased towards the Franks and the Western source-books not towards the Islamic sources ... (except the few Islamic sources used side by side with the Western sources in the info-box) all the sources used in the article are Western. Despite the fact that there are many Islamic source-books for the battle, non of them were used at all in this article. Moreover, the article uses an offensive language against Muslims (such as using the word "Saracens" instead of the word "Muslims"). While it is more objective for the picture of the info-box to be a picture of the battlefield, you have chosen to be the painting of Charles de Steuben which is a fanciful offensive painting. This painting doesn't give any reliable information about the battle itself. Instead, It gives reliable information about the delusions that governed the minds of many people during the middle ages and after.
Many western source-books (especially the primary ones) used to say that 375,000 Muslims were killed in the battle of Toulouse. Then 375,000 (also the same number!!) were killed in the battle of Tours. 375,000 + 375,000 = 750,000 !!!! -- عامرالقمر ( talk) 11:56, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
After Muslims had already lost three quarters of a million (according to your source-books)!!!, they got back the year after the battle of Tours and conquered the Province territory in South France. Then, led by Oqba ibn Al-Hajjaj Al-Saloli, they conquered the territory of Burgundy (which was included in the kingdom of Charles Martel -the Merovingian Franks-) [the Burundians also were a main part in the Frankish army during the battle of tours]. Then they conquered Piedmont in North Italy, and the Eastern part of Aquitaine. They stayed for about 5 years in these territories before the great revolt occurred in Al-Andalus and North Africa. Charles Martel only appeared after 5 years of the battle of tours, when he tried to utilize that revolt and attack the Umayyads in this critical time. However, his campaign failed in the Septimanian territory.-- عامرالقمر ( talk) 12:19, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
It is amazing how much "detail" has been written about this battle, given the lack of evidence; even the year of the battle itself is in dispute. As noted, the most complete account we have of the battle that is anything like contemporary is that quoted in full in the article from the Chronicle of 754, and even that was written over two decades later somewhere in Muslim Spain by an unknown Christian writer, presumably a cleric, not an eyewitness. So many bricks, so little straw! Isidorpax ( talk) 20:56, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
From the article: "The Umayyad attack was likely so late in the year because many men and horses needed to live off the land as they advanced; thus they had to wait until the area's wheat harvest was ready and then until a reasonable amount of the harvest was threshed (slowly by hand with flails) and stored. The further north, the later the harvest is, and while the men could kill farm livestock for food, horses cannot eat meat and needed grain as food."
Horses don't normally eat grain, but fibrous grasses and hay, hence their rumen. Grain is only fed for fattening such an animal for slaughter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.232.35.28 ( talk) 07:13, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
24.162.54.29 ( talk) 21:23, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
I wonder why the "Conclusion" reads as it does, particularly why the "traditional" view (i.e. Tours was a world historically significant event in the tradition of Edward Gibbon) is given so much weight and the scholars used to support it.
Neither Huston Smith, Robert Payne (author), nor Victor Davis Hanson seems to (have) be(en) specialists in the issues at stake here (mainly the interaction of early medieval Europe and Islam).
So basically, why are these 3 scholars given "the final word" on the importance of the Battle of Tours?
If you check the recent episode of In Our Time (BBC Radio 4), the scholars there were all very cautious about both our extant sources on the battle (emphasising their vague, fragmented and partisan nature) and were clearly on the side of downplaying "Gibbon'esque" importance assigned to this battle. (See, or rather listen to: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03pm7dv)
this sourced edit was removed. Why? In ictu oculi ( talk) 16:33, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
IP 69.81.16.158 needs to explain his continuing edit warring to remove a referenced statement by Victor Davis Hanson. This statement appears to be the same type of criticism 69.81.16.158 has placed in the Victor Davis Hanson article. [1] -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 15:35, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
“ | Recent scholars have suggested Poitiers, so poorly recorded in contemporary sources, was a mere raid and thus a construct of western mythmaking or that a Muslim victory might have been preferable to continued Frankish dominance. What is clear is that Poitiers marked a general continuance of the successful defense of Europe, (from the Muslims). Flush from the victory at Tours, Charles Martel went on to clear southern France from Islamic attackers for decades, unify the warring kingdoms into the foundations of the Carolingian Empire, and ensure ready and reliable troops from local estates. | ” |
Interesting article, but it would be better if we just quoted the few sources we have, and left the analysis to God, or someone else who was there.
This is a sea of conjecture. For instance "see the Battle of Hastings" - that was 300 years later, and Charles could not have been influenced by it.
I know its tempting, but please, stick to the facts. Some things are just lost to history.
Cheers Ben Billyshiverstick ( talk) 04:22, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Because they are causing a Checkwiki error #72: "ISBN-10 with wrong checksum", I removed the ISBN from these entries:
- "The state of Islam in Al Andalus", written by Mohammed Abdullah Annan, ((The first era-The first section, from the conquest until the beginning of the era of Al-Nasir)). Fourth edition, published by Khanji library in Cairo. ISBN 977-505-082-4 Parameter error in {{ ISBN}}: checksum. Page 96
- "The state of Islam in Al Andalus", written by Mohammed Abdullah Annan, ((The first era-The first section, from the conquest until the beginning of the era of Al-Nasir)). Fourth edition, published by Khanji library in Cairo. ISBN 977-505-082-4 Parameter error in {{ ISBN}}: checksum. Page 99
I have tried unsuccessfully to locate the correct ISBN on the Internet. This invalid ISBN appears in many articles of the Arabic Wiki. Knife-in-the-drawer ( talk) 15:56, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
As usual, the victor writes history. Since the Franks won, they left a more complete record. The losers, trying to mitigate the defeat, left a scant record. As to the overall effect of the battle, I think we can say it ended the lucrative plunder of northern Europe and that in turn had an effect on the stability of the Muslim hold over Spain. Without the ready flow of treasure and slaves, the Regime had to support itself which it could not do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.73.35.232 ( talk) 15:51, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
24.162.54.29 ( talk) 21:49, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Battle of Tours. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:46, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Battle of Tours. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://print.google.com/print?id=xqfhvfOhW3EC&dq=%20Decline%20and%20Fall%20of%20the%20Roman%20Empire%20and%20the%20battle%20of%20tours%2C&oi=print&pg=PA392&sig=Jv43d1TFi_CI9fHPKIbtsHHsmy0&prev=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Fsearch%3Fhl%3Den&lr=&q=%20Decline%20and%20Fall%20of%20the%20Roman%20Empire%20and%20the%20battle%20of%20tours%2C&btnG=SearchWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:27, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
-- Adbouz ( talk) 23:36, 7 December 2020 (UTC)All these stories of Islamic conquests are just tales without a head or tail. Persian tales The Thousand and One Night have more historical value than your posturing on Wikipedia. There are no witnesses to this event which seems to have turned the history of the world upside down. Not a single witness of the time. An era in which writing was very widespread. The Berbers wrote novels centuries ago. It should have had thousands of witnesses. However, we don't have a single Graffiti on a stone.
In Hijaz, supposedly the birthplace of Islam, not the slightest sign of community life. No archaeological traces, no names of artists, of king and queen, of a philosopher. Nothing, the total desert. Normal, the Hijaz is a desert where even scorpions have difficulty in surviving
The Berber Adrian of Canterbury
I have read that the battlefield was actually closer to Poitiers than Tours. This article says it is “somewhere between the cities of Poitiers and Tours”. I can live with that, although it would be nice to cite the latest consensus on the exact location. What I can’t live with is the geographical coordinates of the city of Tours. That is incorrect and misleading.
Could someone knowledgeable of the history and with the editing skill to display the coordinates please fix this. Humphrey Tribble ( talk) 21:42, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
I wna here it 103.255.150.224 ( talk) 00:51, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
Battle of Tours was one of the History good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on October 10, 2004, October 10, 2005, October 10, 2006, October 10, 2007, October 10, 2008, October 10, 2009, October 10, 2010, and October 10, 2011. | |||||||||||||
Current status: Delisted good article |
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
|
||
Adds nothing to the article. Did someone here have him as a professor and just wanted to include him to get him in a Wiki article? Hansen isn't an authority in any subject, let alone Medieval European battles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.249.195.72 ( talk) 22:18, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Fri August 31st, 2007 I am reading Ivan Gobry ‘s book : Charlemagne, fondateur de l’Europe (Edition du Rocher) On page 22, Ivan reports: Cette memorable journee fut celled u Samedi 17 Octobre 733. La date traditionnelle de 732, apprise par tous les ecoliers ne figure que dans la Chronique de Moissac, redigee au IX siecle. Les autres auteurs indique celle de 733. Les historiens arabes celle de l’an 115 de l’hegire qui est l’equivalent de 733. He insiste that Charles could not have enrolled his army a year earlier and that Charles was reported to strategically waited for the “Sarrasins” to waste their power and ambition enjoying their plunder and the women they raped. PierreC9
In order to uphold the quality of Wikipedia:Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the requirements of the GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force. Unfortunately, as of November 16, 2007, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAN.
Although the article currently has a good number of inline citations, several sections throughout the article are lacking sources, including multiple quotes. Go through the article and add an inline citation for any statement that a reader may question over its verifiability. If you can find sources online, feel free to include those, although book sources are always great, which this article uses a lot of. However, the rest of the article looks fine considering meeting the broad, NPOV, and image requirements. I have listed the many statements that should be sourced, and if sources are added, please do consider renominating the article again.
Need inline citations:
Links/page numbers that should be converted to inline citations:
Again, if you address these issues and check the article against the rest of the GA criteria, consider renominating the article at WP:GAN and let me know and I'll look it over again (so you can avoid the current month+ backlog). If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at WP:GA/R. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article's history to reflect this review. Regards, -- Nehrams2020 10:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps there should be details as to where the battle took place, in a separate section and not having to scatter landscape information throughout the article? -- Sunsetsunrise ( talk) 01:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
In the "background" section...the first paragraph. It is definitely not objective, but is there a reference for it? the_ed 17 18:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
This article needs some cleaning up. How many times is it necessary to repeat that the Franks held the high ground, that they had no cavalry, that the Umayyad had not scouted the North, etc.? Eulalie Écho ( talk) 18:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Was reading through the article and noticed that at one point it says that one of Charles biggest advantages was his professional army, then a few paragraphs it states that he had no standing army. This seems a bit contradictory to me, does anyone else think so? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.91.9.215 ( talk) 07:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, I guess both notations professional army and not standing army are off realism. To my opinion, Charles Martel was one among the various feudal lords of the 'French' region, who managed to persuade the rest of the lords that the muslims were an actual threat, so they all joined their armies - consisted of farmers - to opose the muslims under the rule of Charles Martel (grantfather of Charlomagne). Although the historical time was that of dark ages, army officers and generals, were practicing the phalanx (column) style of combat, which they inherited from the Romans who inherited it from the Greeks. The general idea (which is the western style of combat) is not to brake your rank and the whole column to fight as one man. This way, the enemy cannot overwhelm you. The Eastern (Asian) style of combat, depends on the bravery of every single soldier who attacks the enemy based on his courage. Yet couragious, but without any sufficient plan, the muslims were doomed to lose the fight. The reason they expanded so far until then, was because no serious army opposed them till then. So, all Charles Martell had to do, was to train the farmers to keep their lines and stay cool while the muslim horsemen were attacking. Throughout history, the Europeans have lost some battles of course, but in general, everytime they fight against Asians, or Africans, or the American Aztecs etc, they win, because of their combat style. Stated by redflaw — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.73.252.106 ( talk) 11:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
( Nhoepner ( talk) 07:54, 10 April 2016 (UTC)) Actually, a professional but not standing army is not a contradiction at all. However, relating it to a Greek phalanx, via Roman tradition, is an error.
According to the Ripuarian Law (cited in [1]) the Franks assembled their army either in March (a "Marchfield") or in May (a "Mayfield") by summoning all the free men to gather at a specific place. Most, rather than going to war, paid to equip others. It truly took a village. Fully equipping a Frankish warrior cost the equivalent of thirty-five cows for an infantryman, or forty-seven for a cavalryman. This system provided the Frankish kingdoms with essentially a professional army because those being paid for by the others were the same people, year after year. Most people really did not want to get involved in medieval combat - the willing minority were the same tough, belligerent people every time. Thus, when each nobleman led out his contingent of the army, he "did not take 100 different men each year but had his fixed unit, of which he knew that they would do him credit" ( [2]). These were lifelong professional warriors. They knew each other, campaigned together every year from spring to late fall, and trained individually and in smaller groups through the winter. So Charles Martel did NOT have to "train the farmers to keep their lines and stay cool." There were no farmers involved. Tactics is another thing. It was not really a "phalanx." The Frankish method was in transition from earlier Germanic methods, in particular adopting more cavalry. Martel's army at Tours was a mix that was normal at the time. The infantry in the attack fought in a form of "wedge" formation called the "boar's head," really more of a square than a wedge. In the defense, they formed a shield wall. The Franks in particular used throwing axes (the famous fancisca) as well as spears and swords. Martel's army also included a significant heavy cavalry arm, something for which the Franks were known all the way back to the time of Plutarch ( [3]). Armies were small, a force of ten thousand would have been a large army in those days. So, both Martel and al-Ghafiqi likely showed up with no more than 10,000 to 15,000 men each. Al-Ghafiqi probably had a higher proportion of cavalry, but he had infantry as well. His mistake was attacking uphill into Martel's shield wall. He launched three separate attacks, was repelled three times, and then a raid by part of Martel's cavalry on the Muslim camp caused al-Ghafiqi's men to withdraw without orders in order to save their loot and property. This gave Martel the opportunity to unleash his cavalry and put the Muslim army to flight. The idea that the "Eastern style of combat" required courage from each soldier, while the Western way did not, is nonsense, as is the idea that "Eastern" armies were somehow lacking in organization or a plan and were thus "doomed" when facing a Western force. They crushed the Visigoth kingdom in Spain in a single campaign. They conquered almost the entire Eastern Roman Empire, invaded Italy periodically, and conquered and ruled Sicily from the eighth to the eleventh centuries. They fought Charlemagne to a standstill in 777. To regard them as somehow flawed, or doomed, etc because of this one battle at Tours is myopic at best. Nhoepner ( talk) 07:54, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
References
"Charles's grandson, Charlemagne, became the first Christian ruler to begin what would be called the Reconquista from Europe."
I think Pelayo and his heirs get the honors in that area. Cranston Lamont ( talk) 20:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, its correct. Pelagius of Asturias was the first. Fixed. JamesOredan ( talk) 20:00, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
The illustration at right, used in the text, has been provided with a spurious date in Internet links, which would make it an illustration of this event. I have corrected its caption and repositioned it where it illustrates Christian and European views (in 1822-27) of Saracen invaders, which have colored the traditional historical assessment of the battle of Tours.-- Wetman ( talk) 23:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
== Vouneuil sur Vienne == (intelligible)
I was there at the site yesterday. To name V s V is not correct. It is also missleading. I drove to V s V and had to find out after searching a lot and asking a french man (imagine, how difficult that is, since I hardly speak french) that the monument is actually north-west of Montgame.
This map is approximatelly correct:
http://www.maplandia.com/france/poitou-charentes/vienne/chatellerault/moussais-la-bataille/
Moussais la Battaile is a small place with 3-4 old hauses, which are ruined, but there are people living. The houses of course are not from the time of the battle. The actual battle was between the monument and th M la B of today. M la B is approximatelly the resting place of Abdul Rahman.
-- 83.200.42.105 ( talk) 22:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Is it really necessary for Gibbon's to have his opinion 'validated' by saying basically Gibbons (and every historian that ever lived and mattered) said that...? Soxwon ( talk) 17:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
"(see Postmodernism)" starts a paragraph. This needs elaboration or it needs to be removed. patsw ( talk) 17:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Simply saying UNKNOWN due to lack of surviving contemporary records or reliable secondary sources seems best. TBH this historically battle is important mainly for the death of the Islamic leader and withdrawal of Islamic expeditionary forces to the well established territory of Islamic rule on the Iberian pennisula. Details of the battle do not impact subsequent battles. The death of the Islamic commander ended his military expedition. So condensing the article to these actual known facts is probably warranted.
All later historians are in fact just speculating and theorizing about details. The perceived conflicts in surviving contemporary general descriptions may not even exist. It is quite possible that Islamic forces were in fact both superior in numbers in the region BUT also severely outnumbered at the point of engagement. Logistics of living off the land and cavalry raiding styles might well have dispersed and scattered numeric advantage and limited coordinated response to an unexpected encounter. This "dispersed and unprepared" situation is additionally suggested by the ambush of the main camp in the rear. Basically Asian-Islamic style cavalry mobs were good at gathering widespread forces and focusing on attacking known locations once orders were disseminated. But those same forces might not even receive orders to gather for timely defense against unexpected attacks on the vanguard, command group, or main camp. This "unexpected defense" situation would also tend to lead to poor records of the battle by the Islamic side as most "survivors" probably were not near the actual battle. So realistically we should not expect to know many details if the Franks did not record or preserve their perspective. 24.162.54.29 ( talk) 20:43, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
The mozarabic chronicle a Contemporary source which describes the battle in greater detail than any other Latin or Arabic source states that the franks outnumbered the muslims and were better equiped and that agrees with muslim account and common sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaid almasri ( talk • contribs) 20:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
"In the blink of an eye, they annihilated the Arabs with the sword. The people of Austrasia, greater in number of soldiers and formidably armed, killed the king, Abd ar-Rahman" - Wolf (trans), Chronicle of 754, p. 145 ( Zaid almasri ( talk) 22:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC))
you can check all the previous campaigns of the caliphate in that region and you will find that the armies were very small in size so how come they suddenly became that large despite several defeats. Abdul Rahman also left a large portion of the army to garrison the captured cities.( Zaid almasri ( talk) 22:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC))
it is also a good idea to notice that the size of the army that crossed from north africa and conquered iberia (in 711) only 21 year before the battle of tours were 7000 men only( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariq_Ibn_Ziyad) , so the claims by some sources that the caliphate army were in hundreds of thousands or even tens of thousands is completely unrealistic. ( Zaid almasri ( talk) 22:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaid almasri ( talk • contribs) 22:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
There's a great deal of discussion of the army about Martel, and rightfully so. Were the women and children protected by the surrounding troops? Sometimes women get themselves in to the middle of battles, with delusional thought of turning attention away and averting something thought childish game, only to see it was a full on attack?
Removing a sourced quote from a major 20th century figure regarding the macrohistorical importance of the article subject in a section on 20th century views of its macrohistorical importance is both asinine and vandalism. "Well durr I don't think Hitler counts as a historian durr" is not a valid counterpoint. -- NEMT ( talk) 02:49, 10 October 2010 (UTC) To expand - the section covers "historical and macrohistorical views" in the context of military and political influence in Europe. Demonstrating how the battle shaped opinions of significant figures in contemporary and modern history should be one of the primary goals here. Dismissing anyone whose primary notability is not as a historian, despite historic significance and a background in the subject matter, is a disservice to anyone looking to gain a comprehensive knowledge of modern historical views of the article subject (i.e.: the reason most would seek out this section of the page). -- NEMT ( talk) 05:09, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
In section 4.2 it says: 'Contemporary Arab and Muslim historians and chroniclers were much more interested in the second Umayyad siege of Constantinople in 718, which ended in a disastrous defeat.' There are no extant histories by 'Arab and Muslim historians' of that date, and even were there there should surely be a citation there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.63.121 ( talk) 14:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
There is a lengthy section on the size of the armies, ranging from x to y, with figures for each side going as high as 80.000. Then, it says "Charles Martel's force lost about 1,500 while the Umayyad force was said to have suffered massive casualties of up to 375,000 men". Besides this number being completely out of proportion to the size of the army, it would mean that each Frank would have to have killed 250 men!!!!! Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia ( talk) 23:10, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
They probably ment 37,500 Rowanis12 ( talk) 16:12, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Also casualty figures could be inflated by non-combatants etc slaughtered in the ambush of the Islamic main camp in the rear area. Blending in such counts was more common in "less civilized times". 24.162.54.29 ( talk) 22:26, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
I think that this article may be having a POV issue. It seems that in the last few months, an Arab/Islamic point of view, especially in regards to the infobox, has been injected into this article, particularly now that the infobox is essentially according to "Islamic sources" with no exception. I think it would be in the article's best interests that some of these recent edits be either verified, or corrected and re-cited.-- L1A1 FAL ( talk) 21:13, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
The article is clearly biased towards the Franks and the Western source-books not towards the Islamic sources ... (except the few Islamic sources used side by side with the Western sources in the info-box) all the sources used in the article are Western. Despite the fact that there are many Islamic source-books for the battle, non of them were used at all in this article. Moreover, the article uses an offensive language against Muslims (such as using the word "Saracens" instead of the word "Muslims"). While it is more objective for the picture of the info-box to be a picture of the battlefield, you have chosen to be the painting of Charles de Steuben which is a fanciful offensive painting. This painting doesn't give any reliable information about the battle itself. Instead, It gives reliable information about the delusions that governed the minds of many people during the middle ages and after.
Many western source-books (especially the primary ones) used to say that 375,000 Muslims were killed in the battle of Toulouse. Then 375,000 (also the same number!!) were killed in the battle of Tours. 375,000 + 375,000 = 750,000 !!!! -- عامرالقمر ( talk) 11:56, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
After Muslims had already lost three quarters of a million (according to your source-books)!!!, they got back the year after the battle of Tours and conquered the Province territory in South France. Then, led by Oqba ibn Al-Hajjaj Al-Saloli, they conquered the territory of Burgundy (which was included in the kingdom of Charles Martel -the Merovingian Franks-) [the Burundians also were a main part in the Frankish army during the battle of tours]. Then they conquered Piedmont in North Italy, and the Eastern part of Aquitaine. They stayed for about 5 years in these territories before the great revolt occurred in Al-Andalus and North Africa. Charles Martel only appeared after 5 years of the battle of tours, when he tried to utilize that revolt and attack the Umayyads in this critical time. However, his campaign failed in the Septimanian territory.-- عامرالقمر ( talk) 12:19, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
It is amazing how much "detail" has been written about this battle, given the lack of evidence; even the year of the battle itself is in dispute. As noted, the most complete account we have of the battle that is anything like contemporary is that quoted in full in the article from the Chronicle of 754, and even that was written over two decades later somewhere in Muslim Spain by an unknown Christian writer, presumably a cleric, not an eyewitness. So many bricks, so little straw! Isidorpax ( talk) 20:56, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
From the article: "The Umayyad attack was likely so late in the year because many men and horses needed to live off the land as they advanced; thus they had to wait until the area's wheat harvest was ready and then until a reasonable amount of the harvest was threshed (slowly by hand with flails) and stored. The further north, the later the harvest is, and while the men could kill farm livestock for food, horses cannot eat meat and needed grain as food."
Horses don't normally eat grain, but fibrous grasses and hay, hence their rumen. Grain is only fed for fattening such an animal for slaughter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.232.35.28 ( talk) 07:13, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
24.162.54.29 ( talk) 21:23, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
I wonder why the "Conclusion" reads as it does, particularly why the "traditional" view (i.e. Tours was a world historically significant event in the tradition of Edward Gibbon) is given so much weight and the scholars used to support it.
Neither Huston Smith, Robert Payne (author), nor Victor Davis Hanson seems to (have) be(en) specialists in the issues at stake here (mainly the interaction of early medieval Europe and Islam).
So basically, why are these 3 scholars given "the final word" on the importance of the Battle of Tours?
If you check the recent episode of In Our Time (BBC Radio 4), the scholars there were all very cautious about both our extant sources on the battle (emphasising their vague, fragmented and partisan nature) and were clearly on the side of downplaying "Gibbon'esque" importance assigned to this battle. (See, or rather listen to: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03pm7dv)
this sourced edit was removed. Why? In ictu oculi ( talk) 16:33, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
IP 69.81.16.158 needs to explain his continuing edit warring to remove a referenced statement by Victor Davis Hanson. This statement appears to be the same type of criticism 69.81.16.158 has placed in the Victor Davis Hanson article. [1] -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 15:35, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
“ | Recent scholars have suggested Poitiers, so poorly recorded in contemporary sources, was a mere raid and thus a construct of western mythmaking or that a Muslim victory might have been preferable to continued Frankish dominance. What is clear is that Poitiers marked a general continuance of the successful defense of Europe, (from the Muslims). Flush from the victory at Tours, Charles Martel went on to clear southern France from Islamic attackers for decades, unify the warring kingdoms into the foundations of the Carolingian Empire, and ensure ready and reliable troops from local estates. | ” |
Interesting article, but it would be better if we just quoted the few sources we have, and left the analysis to God, or someone else who was there.
This is a sea of conjecture. For instance "see the Battle of Hastings" - that was 300 years later, and Charles could not have been influenced by it.
I know its tempting, but please, stick to the facts. Some things are just lost to history.
Cheers Ben Billyshiverstick ( talk) 04:22, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Because they are causing a Checkwiki error #72: "ISBN-10 with wrong checksum", I removed the ISBN from these entries:
- "The state of Islam in Al Andalus", written by Mohammed Abdullah Annan, ((The first era-The first section, from the conquest until the beginning of the era of Al-Nasir)). Fourth edition, published by Khanji library in Cairo. ISBN 977-505-082-4 Parameter error in {{ ISBN}}: checksum. Page 96
- "The state of Islam in Al Andalus", written by Mohammed Abdullah Annan, ((The first era-The first section, from the conquest until the beginning of the era of Al-Nasir)). Fourth edition, published by Khanji library in Cairo. ISBN 977-505-082-4 Parameter error in {{ ISBN}}: checksum. Page 99
I have tried unsuccessfully to locate the correct ISBN on the Internet. This invalid ISBN appears in many articles of the Arabic Wiki. Knife-in-the-drawer ( talk) 15:56, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
As usual, the victor writes history. Since the Franks won, they left a more complete record. The losers, trying to mitigate the defeat, left a scant record. As to the overall effect of the battle, I think we can say it ended the lucrative plunder of northern Europe and that in turn had an effect on the stability of the Muslim hold over Spain. Without the ready flow of treasure and slaves, the Regime had to support itself which it could not do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.73.35.232 ( talk) 15:51, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
24.162.54.29 ( talk) 21:49, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Battle of Tours. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:46, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Battle of Tours. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://print.google.com/print?id=xqfhvfOhW3EC&dq=%20Decline%20and%20Fall%20of%20the%20Roman%20Empire%20and%20the%20battle%20of%20tours%2C&oi=print&pg=PA392&sig=Jv43d1TFi_CI9fHPKIbtsHHsmy0&prev=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Fsearch%3Fhl%3Den&lr=&q=%20Decline%20and%20Fall%20of%20the%20Roman%20Empire%20and%20the%20battle%20of%20tours%2C&btnG=SearchWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:27, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
-- Adbouz ( talk) 23:36, 7 December 2020 (UTC)All these stories of Islamic conquests are just tales without a head or tail. Persian tales The Thousand and One Night have more historical value than your posturing on Wikipedia. There are no witnesses to this event which seems to have turned the history of the world upside down. Not a single witness of the time. An era in which writing was very widespread. The Berbers wrote novels centuries ago. It should have had thousands of witnesses. However, we don't have a single Graffiti on a stone.
In Hijaz, supposedly the birthplace of Islam, not the slightest sign of community life. No archaeological traces, no names of artists, of king and queen, of a philosopher. Nothing, the total desert. Normal, the Hijaz is a desert where even scorpions have difficulty in surviving
The Berber Adrian of Canterbury
I have read that the battlefield was actually closer to Poitiers than Tours. This article says it is “somewhere between the cities of Poitiers and Tours”. I can live with that, although it would be nice to cite the latest consensus on the exact location. What I can’t live with is the geographical coordinates of the city of Tours. That is incorrect and misleading.
Could someone knowledgeable of the history and with the editing skill to display the coordinates please fix this. Humphrey Tribble ( talk) 21:42, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
I wna here it 103.255.150.224 ( talk) 00:51, 26 November 2022 (UTC)