🚩 Go to bit.ly/thld_cs_historymarche and use code HISTORYMARCHE to save 25% off today. Thanks to Curiosity Stream for sponsoring today’s video. 🚩 The Franks, led by Charles Martel, met the Muslim army commanded by Abd al-Rahman, the Umayyad governor of Spain, in early October 732 AD. Some have argued that this brief conflict influenced the fate of Christian civilization in Europe, while others see it as a simple border skirmish. The truth, it seems, lies somewhere in-between. 🚩 Support HistoryMarche on Patreon and get ad-free early access to our videos for as little as $1: www.patreon.com/historymarche
hey HM great video as always but please explain/clarify....at 15:30 you say Al Rahman is killed by javelin or arrow show, and at the end in Footnote nr2 you say al Rahman consolidated his position etc etc?
Siege of constantinople was more important, sources viewed battle of tour as skrmkish and it was just raid for looting cities. Even after umayyad defeat in tour they continuously leading expedition into francia terroties they also manage to defeat charles in nabronne 737, umayyad had no intentionally of conquering france terrorties but rather focusing more in loots and spoils and golds, that explains during battle odo attacked their camp then suddenly umayyad army retreat and headed back to their camp to rescue their loots and spolis ended up in their defeat abd rahman fought barvely didn't order his army to retreat camp to protecting spolis, it was his decision result half of his army retreat to camp as soon as odo attacking their camp then disasters occured among umayyad army lines which was a good opportunity for frankish to advance, before retreat camp the umayyad was fighting well and advancing frankish, charles was under pressure couldn't do anything but stick in defense, he did a good move by sending odo to attack their camp otherwise charles would be defeated
@@ciripa The Abd Al Rahman mentioned in this story is Abd al-Rahman ibn (son of) Abd Allah al-Ghafiqi, commander/governor of Al-andalus (Iberia while under the Muslims). The Abd al-Rahman mentioned in the footnote is Abd al-Rahman I ibn Mu’awiya, future emir of the Emirate of Cordoba. An emir is of higher rank than a commander/governor. Also look up the Wikipedia record of how he became an emir - it's amazing!
A continuation of the series would be amazing looking at islamic rule in france (maybe the continued conquest in provence after this loss, peppin defating and removing them from france, and the return of muslims rule in france in franxtium)
Although many battles are won by flanking and cavalry charges, there's something fundamentally appealing in seeing a well drilled and experienced infantry based army.
the fact that cavalry was sent straight into enemy infantry shows how dominant cavalry typicaly was , it took nerves to hold that ground when faced with the thunder of hooves and that is shown throughout history : it takes veteran infantry (typicaly) to withstand this onslaught
JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA : "... , it remains a fact that the Jews, either directly or through their coreligionists in Africa, encouraged the Mohammedans to conquer Spain and that they greeted them as their deliverers. After the battle of Jerez (711), in which African Jews fought bravely under Kaula al-Yahudi, and in which the last Gothic king, Rodrigo, and his nobles were slain, the conquerors Musa and Ṭariḳ were everywhere victorious. The conquered cities Cordova, Malaga, Granada, Seville, and Toledo were placed in charge of the Jewish inhabitants, who had been armed by the Arabs. The victors removed the disabilities which had oppressed the Jews so heavily, and granted them full religious liberty, requiring them to pay only the tribute of one golden dinar per capita (Adolf do Castro, "Historia de los Judios en España," pp. 33 et seq.; Rios, "Hist." i. 106 et seq.; G. van Vlooten, "Recherches sur la Domination Arabe," Amsterdam, 1894). A new era now dawned for the Jews of the Pyrenean peninsula, whose number had been considerably augmented by those who had followed the Arab conquerors, as well as by later immigrants from Africa. Hardly a decade after the conquest, however, many Jews left their new home in order to follow a man named Serenus (Zanora, Zonaria) who had appeared in Syria and had proclaimed himself the Messiah (721); the governor, Anbasa (Ambisa), who was collecting enormous sums for the fiscus, confiscated the property of the emigrating Jews for this purpose. Under the Ommiad 'Abd al-Raḥman I., whose greatness is said to have been foretold by a learned Jew who became his adviser, a flourishing kingdom was established, of which Cordova was the center. During 'Abd al-Raḥman's reign the Jews devoted themselves to the service of the califate, to the study of the sciences, and to commerce and industry, especially to trading in silk and slaves, in this way promoting the prosperity of the country. Southern Spain became an asylum for the oppressed Jews of other parts. Bodo-Eleazar, a convert to Judaism, went to Cordova, where he is said to have endeavored to win proselytes for Judaism from among the Spanish Christians; but that the mass of the Spanish Jews of the period in question hated the Christians and aimed at making proselytes is not correct. Under 'Abd al-Rahman I. and Al-Ḥakim. The reigns of 'Abd al-Raḥman I. (called Al-Nasir; 912-961) and his son Al-Ḥakim were the golden era for the Spanish Jews and Jewish science. 'Abd al-Raḥman's court physician and minister was Ḥasdai ben Isaac ibn Shaprut, the patron of Menahem ben Saruḳ, Dunash ben Labraṭ, and other Jewish scholars and poets. During his term of power the scholar Moses ben Enoch was appointed rabbi of Cordova, and as a consequence Spain became the center of Talmudic study, and Cordova the meeting-place of Jewish savants. After the downfall of Al-Ḥakim, who likewise favored the Jews, a struggle for the throne broke out between Sulaiman ibn al-Ḥakim and Mohammed ibn Hisham. Sulaiman solicited the assistance of Count Sancho of Castile, while Mohammed, through the agency of wealthy Jewish merchants in Cordova, obtained the aid of Count Ramon of Barcelona. For this Sulaiman took fearful revenge upon the Jews, expelling them mercilessly from city and country (1013). With the overthrow of the Banu Amir the power of the Mohammedan state in Spain came to an end,the mighty califate of Cordova being divided into twelve minor states under different califs. The Abbadites ruled in Seville, the Hammudites in Malaga, the Zayrids in Granada, the Beni-Hud in Saragossa, and others in Almeria, Toledo, Valencia, Niebla, etc. Several Jews left Cordova for Malaga, Granada, Toledo, Murcia, and Saragossa.
The arab/muslim cavalry of that era wasnt known exactly for being a heavy cavalry, but rather a fast, very mobile and versatile cavalry. That's one of the many reasons they defeated the heavy cavalry of the sassanids, and it's probably one of the reasons of their defeat at tours.
@@istoppedcaring6209 When the kingdom of the Persians came to an end, in the days of their king Khosro 1, the kingdom of the children of Hagar at once gained control over more or less the whole world, for they took the whole kingdom of the Persians. overthrowing all their warriors who prided themselves in the arts of war. We should not think of the advent (of the children of Hagar) as something ordinary, but as due to divine working. Before calling them, (God) had prepared them beforehand to hold Christians in honour, thus they also had a special commandment from God concerning our monastic station, that they should hold it in honour. Now when these people came, at God's command, and took over as it were both kingdoms, not with any war or battle, but in a menial fashion, such as when a brand is rescued out of the fire; not using weapons of war or human means. God put victory into their hands in such a way that the words written concerning them might be fulfilled, namely, 'One man chased a thousand and two men routed ten thousand'! How, otherwise, could naked men, riding without armour or shield, have been able to win, apart from divine aid, God having called them from the ends of the earth so as to destroy, by them, a sinful kingdom, and to bring low, through them. the proud spirit of the Persians. Only a short period passed before the entire world was handed over to the Arabs; they subdued all the fortified cities, taking control from sea to sea 2, and from East to West - Aigyptos and the whole of Mesrin, and from Crete to Cappadocia, from Yahelman 3 to the gates of Alan, Armenians, Syrians. Persians, Byzantines, Egyptians and all the intermediary regions: their hand was upon everyone, as the prophet says. Only half the Byzantine empire was left by them. Who can relate the carnage they effected in Greek territory, in Kush, in Spain, and in other distant regions, taking captive their sons and daughters and reducing them to slavery and servitude. Against those who had not ceased in times of peace and prosperity from fighting against their Creator, there was sent a barbarian people who had no pity on them. Having reached thus far, however, in the narrative, let us end this book here, and give praise to Father, Son and Holy Spirit for ever, Amen. JOHN BAR PENKAYE 7th century
“Modern academia always try to malign Christian Crusaders as being conquerors who picked on the poor little ole Muslims but they forget who drew first blood.
Anti-woke nonsense. Yeah all those Islam supporting academics, while all the universities have shut down non-violent and democratic protests about the genocide in Gaza. You can’t have it both ways.
It is because there are many more small-scale tactical decisions. Modern-day fighting requires large logistical thinking and overwhelming amounts of planning. Back then, it was more of a fight for survival at every turn.
@@JamesKovacs first battle of Fallujah , second battle of Fallujah , Abu Ghraib , plus about 5-6 more that the I personally participated in with USMC .. I was involved in about as small scale tactical fighting as you can get.. (hand to hand included) as were many other Marines. Tiny amounts of ammo and water to be rationed out on squad level and smaller. Cut off .. surrounded. Pretty small scale shit.
To me I have the a similar feeling multiplied by 100 when it's a battle in wich Napoleon was a part of, it's the stuff that religions are created of by how insane his victories were as well as the soldiers that followed him they seem like another breed of human capable of winning against all odds to forces sometimes 10 times superior.
Age of Empires 2 Outro: The soul of the Frankish army was its knights, but Charles Martel knew that his cavalry-undisciplined, buried under weight of weapons and armor-could not match the swiftness of the Muslim riders. Therefore, he ordered the knights to dismount and join ranks with the Frankish swordsmen to form a tight shield-wall. The Muslims had always conquered with swift offensiveness and were not equipped to counter the Franks' defensive strategy. The arrows of the Muslim archers bounced harmlessly off the heavy Frankish armor, and the light Muslim cavalry could not breach the human chain. Battered and bleeding, the invaders broke ranks and fled back to the Pyrenees and the protection of Spain. From Charles Martel's Frankish kingdom eventually grew the Holy Roman Empire, making him the founding father of both Germany and France.
German national novel point of view. Not french. East side of the Rhin was conquered rulently (saxon wars). While western aide of the Rhin autority claim started long time before. Minimum since clovis for the french national novel. In reality, there is no such thing as natural solidarity around France idea (and so french idea) before Louis VI the fat (XIc).
The battle of tours would mean nothing without the barrier formed by the tiny christian kingdoms remaining at nothern Spain. We suffered the whole weight of the islamic forces during years and years preventing them to try again to invade the rest of Europe. The last attempt took place on July 1212 at "Las Navas de Tolosa" were a big Almoravid army, arrived from Morocco and intended to "take breakfast at Rome" was defeated by a coalition of all iberian kingdoms togheder with english, french and german knights. And yes, all those continuos waste of blood, all those dark years, seem to have been worth for nothing 😢
There must have been an effective chain of command, there must have been a second in command. This would explain how the same night the army was leaderless, it made an organised retreat.
Don't forget the feodal system: many lords obeyed their superior because of the "hommage" system. The killing of a leader freeded his vassals, who may choose according to their heart or to some complex secondary allegiances, to the point of reversing the outcome of the battle. It was not very important here, but it was particularly important in other battles, such as Kosovo.
This is due to the nature of the muslim faith rather than mere technicalities and battle analysis. When such things happen to muslims, they go into the Japanese Kamakazi mode but in their own flavor becoming serious shit to defeat.
This has quickly become my favorite channel on youtube. By far the most detailed maps, amazing commentary, and consistent interesting content. I think you should cover the mongol conquest of southern song!
so glad you covered this battle. one of those battles that really does show how if a different outcome had occurred Europe and world history would have been completely different
@@chrisrace744 Wait... what? Hehe... Have you been to Sweden recently? Germany? Netherlands? Or maybe, to anywhere in Europe? It appears that the North did eventually fall to the "arabs", and they used the same tactics they used to get into Spain in 711 - the treason of those in charge of protecting their own people.
@@chrisrace744 Had Muslims won, following would happen: 1. South france under Muslim control with no threat of reversal. 2. Without the Patronage of a strong Frankish empire in this timeline, there would be No Central Authority of Catholic Pope in Europe. 3. This would give Muslims to play a big Religious Diplomacy i.e, inviting pagan Germanic tribes/kingdoms north of France to Islam e.g, (Polish-lithuanian, baltics, Vikings etc.) 4. Vikings may also have accepted Islam seeing strong Muslim presence in Mediterranean and even in Atlantic. (Andalusia had a strong navy on Atlantic coast and defeated a Viking naval invasion as well)
@@chrisrace744 who beat Rome, Gauls or Muslim Arabs? you are on a history channel, so dont embarrass yourself!
ปีที่แล้ว +175
This battle brings back good memories of the Age of Empires 2 campaign. Something that I find striking is the fact that France, the country where great importance has always been attached to using its formidable cavalry to achieve victories, has ended up winning one of the most important battles in not only its entire history, but also in the entire West, with an army made up entirely of infantry; I don't know what others think, but it seems quite ironic to me. XD
It really wasn’t that important. Had the Muslims won they would have presumably just kept raiding monasteries as there was no real value in conquering France during this period. This battle took place before the “medieval optimum” so the climate would have made france absolutely miserable to live in. Nothing grew there and the population was very small unskilled. Before modern historians like Gibbons nobody even knew much about this battle other than it was fought by Charles Martell who was related to Charlemagne.
@@lumanate1493 But in case of a Muslim victory, wouldn't it have changed the fate of Septimania and even Toulouse and some Aquitanian territories? Without Oddo, the Franks would have seized the land south of Loire river, and would have perhaps achieve a status quo with the masters of Narbonne then Toulouse. The Reconquista would have still happened, though.
@@rjbmarchiac8693 Sources didn't viewed battle tour as not important battle, tour was skrmkish and raid even after tour the umayyad still continuously expedition and raiding into francia terrorties which the battle didn't stop umayyad they also defeated charles at nabronne 737, umayyad weren't intentionally to conquering francia but rather than raiding and marching into terroties to plunder cities for spolies and golds, abd rahman and his army was focusing for loots with no stragic goal and planning for battles but countine raiding for loots till as soon as they reach tour they coincidencely confront charles and engaging with franks army depsite the umayyad did a good charging attack on them and managed to push franks and advancing them they put charles under pressure and bad position had stuck in defensive and ressist them, the umayyad weren't fighting in faith but for the seek of loots, when charles send forces under odo to attack their camp they distract umayyad army and result in splitting army lines and causes umayyad army to be diviving and broke out ranks ended up half their army return their camp to protecting their spolies which was of their reasons defeated in tour
@@lumanate1493 France was the most populated area in Europe at the time since the down of the western Roman empire wtf are you trying to say ? And Aquitaine alone was richer than all Hispanic peninsula.
@@senseishu937 yeah. Its a french song that talks about battle od Roncevaux pass between forces of Charlemagne and Basques (in the song there are no Basques but Saracens). And the song talks about last moments of Roland, a knight serving Charlemagne.
Sources didn't viewed battle tour as not important battle, tour was skrmkish and raid even after tour the umayyad still continuously expedition and raiding into francia terrorties which the battle didn't stop umayyad they also defeated charles at nabronne 737, umayyad weren't intentionally to conquering francia but rather than raiding and marching into terroties to plunder cities for spolies and golds, abd rahman and his army was focusing for loots with no stragic goal and planning for battles but countine raiding for loots till as soon as they reach tour they coincidencely confront charles and engaging with franks army depsite the umayyad did a good charging attack on them and managed to push franks and advancing them they put charles under pressure and bad position had stuck in defensive and ressist them, the umayyad weren't fighting in faith but for the seek of loots, when charles send forces under odo to attack their camp they distract umayyad army and result in splitting army lines and causes umayyad army to be diviving and broke out ranks ended up half their army return their camp to protecting their spolies
Eventhough everyone knows, it's always a good day when one see's a HistoryMarche upload, still got to make a Sacrifice for it. Hoping to see you guy's pop the 1 mil mark soon!
This channel is one of my favorite historical coverage channels...good luck and best wishes for History Marche channel....it was informative and enjoyable introduced
Even in France we used to call it "Battle of Tours" a long time ago, then we changed it for "Battle of Poitiers" but the rest of the world kept calling of "Battle of Tours". The truth is we don't know exactly where it happened and it was probably somewhere between Tours and Poitiers lol.
Soldiers at this time didnt get paid a salary. They are paid with a portion of loot. I think most army at the time is like this. (Unless you are personal retinue of a noble). The bulk of the army are just levied peasants.
i agree with you. however the creed of muslim armies and what actually made them win battles were that they were "fearless" and their moto was called " either victory or martyrsim". read about yarmuk battle or any battle on the early stages of islam expansions.
@@timoalx10 I'm sure there are some soldiers who think they are doing gods work. But the vast majority are there for chances to loot and plunder. Hate to say it, but being greedy is just part of human nature.
The same mistake but dont say "we never learn". Mistakes happen from time to time. As Allah says in the Quran: "If a wound should touch you - there has already touched the [opposing] people a wound similar to it. *And these days [of varying conditions] We alternate among the people* so that Allāh may make evident those who believe and [may] take to Himself from among you martyrs - and Allāh does not like the wrongdoers" Surah 3:140
King of France Charles "The Hammer" Martel, whom the pope himself crowned "Emperor of the Romans", he was the grandfather of Charlemagne, in France, Rodrigo Díaz de Vivar, Prince of Valencia, aka El Cid (from the Arabic honorific as-Sayyid) in Spain, Count Vlad III Dracula (yes that Dracula), whom the pope called "A Catholic Warrior" in Wallachia (a region in Romania including Transylvania) and Bulgaria, János Hunyadi, regent of Hungary, whom the Pope called "Christ's Champion", in Hungary and Serbia and John III Sobieski, King of Poland, whom the Pope called "the Savior of Christendom, who lead the Winged Hussars in defending Vienna and routed the muslims in Austria collectively saved Europe and Western civilization.
@JZ's BFF not all battles are the same. A lot of fuss is made about the Polish hussar charge against Ottomans, but its likely that without this victory the Polish would have been muslim in the first place
@JZ's BFF like I said, it's thought of as a turning point for Muslim expansion from the east but without Charles Martel's victory its possible that the west at that time would have been muslim in the first place
@JZ's BFF there were Polish Muslim Tartars who took part in the relief of Vienna and Christians who took part in the attack under Turkish direction. In 1453 there were Christians who took part in the attack and Muslims who took part in the defence no cause is perfect or pure!
I have been signed up to curiosity stream for like 5 months I signed up last time your sponsored them, it is so worth the what 7-8$ a month there are hundreds of videos from murder, history, war, science, space and much more it is so worth signing up for it.
I've always had lots of respect for this channel for displaying all kinds of battles in such an accurate and entertaining way. It makes people more interested in watching and learning history... XD Even though they lost this battle and obviously many others, the Arabs have made such a big influence and a major deal of expansion in such little time it's insane. They had many great commanders and strategists, winning many battles while often being outnumbered and undergeared compared to their foes.
There a lot of reasons for their expansion unrelated to their fighting prowess. I would also argue that they outnumbered their opponent more often then not. The Eastern Roman Empire and the Sassanid empire had a long running fued that lasted on and off for 300 years, but a 30 year war that concluded 5 years before the Battle of Yarmouk. This battle divided the Eastern Roman Empire in two, and fractured the North African portion into provinces not cohesive nation. Not to mention the plague of Justinian in 541 and continued for 250 years. The result is in 10 years it wiped out half of the Roman Empire population and ravaged the younger generation every 10-15 years for 250 years. This plague did not really affect the Arabs at all until they started capturing large junks of territory. The rise of the Avars and Bulgars to the north of the Eastern Roman Empire also divided the e priory attention. A good podcast is the history of Byzantium if you want an easy to follow narrative.
@@Agrippa871I mean the Arabs had come off a massive civil war and subjugation of the other powerful Arab tribes and nations in the ridda wars while the war between the Persians and Byzantium was happening too so yeah they weren't exactly a fresh force either. Plus according to many sources they were in fact outnumbered in most of the major battles against them because they were fighting on two fronts after all against the two superpowers of the time.
Not an actual what if but it is still a video related to the topic of everyone's most asked "what if" question in the end. Thanks for this video about the Battle of Tours!
For the whole of humanity. Arabs today would have nothing our civilization has produced of they'd won back then. No electricity, no internal combustion engine, no internet, no suicide vests, no nothing.
Yes but it was merely put on a back burner. They simply bided their time for generations until they could once more invade but against a population that no longer fights back. This time our leaders will welcome the establishment of the new caliphates of Europe. No need for cavalry.
But of course, the Byzantines truly stopped the Muslim armies at Constantinople, for centuries and numerous sieges, while Northern Europe sheltered behind it (and the Pyrenees in the west).
No mention of the heavy defeat of the Muslims in 737 at the south of Narbonne at the battle of the Berre River , by Charles, where he took by surprise a great Muslim army coming from Spain for helping Narbonne against the siege made by Charles. In this battle it was not about a raid but a strategic battle. On military point of view it was more important , but because it is linked with the failure of the siege of Narbonne, it is less known. And i guess this is why they use the battle of Tours as symbol.
Charles was defeated in battle of nabronne 737 and battle of berre reiver umayyad didn't fielded that large army as you imgaine they were few thousands lberia dont have large army umayyad max were 30k they didn't send all their army to nabronne only some of them, charles ambush them and did superise attack when they were in their way to nabronne
@@ghostd69 20k 30k this is what i have seen... And the failure of the siege of Narbonne what it means? ... Well Charles just removed his troops around Narbonne, he didn't had the means tout win the siege and he hag more omportant affairs in the north. This is not a big defeat , unlike the Berre River for the muslims.
@@jean-louispech4921 30k and 20k weren't fielded to this battle they were 10k umayyad army in lberia have totoally of 20k after they lost many of their army tours so they not willing to assemble their entirely army and left lberia unguarded there was continuously internal issue and affairs in lberia to deal with it aswell, charles was itentionally to take over nabronne like he did with rest citites he managed marching into deeply nabronne and umayyad repelled him and forced him leave nabronne and managed to capture narbonne, he only defeat arabs in skrmkish and monior engagement, berre river he ambushed and superise attack renforced army by cutting off their road
Charlemagne is probably the father of all Europeans, similarly how Genghis Khan's DNA is in tens of millions of people. Powerful and prestigious people used to have powerful and prestigious kids who were prime candidates for marriage
French People with ethnic origin from the north have a high probability to be of Germanic (Frankish) ancestry. Particularly in the Nord Pas de Calais région where the Germanic haplogroup is dominant
Franks are germanic, not all Frenchmen of today have frankish ancestors. Hell, i went to paris this year, it looked like almost everyone has ancestors that fought on the muslim side in this war.
No Charles Martel bro but Leo 3 Bizanyne emerator and Bulgaria ruler Tervel.Sige in Constantinolol 717-718.defend 100k arabian Mighty army and saved Europa
Sources didn't viewed battle tour as not important battle, tour was skrmkish and raid even after tour the umayyad still continuously expedition and raiding into francia terrorties which the battle didn't stop umayyad they also defeated charles at nabronne 737, umayyad weren't intentionally to conquering francia but rather than raiding and marching into terroties to plunder cities for spolies and golds, abd rahman and his army was focusing for loots with no stragic goal and planning for battles but countine raiding for loots till as soon as they reach tour they coincidencely confront charles and engaging with franks army depsite the umayyad did a good charging attack on them and managed to push franks and advancing them they put charles under pressure and bad position had stuck in defensive and ressist them, the umayyad weren't fighting in faith but for the seek of loots, when charles send forces under odo to attack their camp they distract umayyad army and result in splitting army lines and causes umayyad army to be diviving and broke out ranks ended up half their army return their camp to protecting their spolies which was of their reasons defeated in tour
@@ghostd69 They were invading France lol you can look it up they also invaded acquatin and also the umayyed emperor did order his army to attack France
Septimania do not last for long. It was a descendant of the Marquisate of Gothia and will evolve later in a land split between France and Aragon influences. Untill it became totally French as the Languedoc (capital Toulouse) after the Albigensian crusade in 1229. It still exist today as part of modern Occitania region (6 M inhabitants).
any sources that the abbassids allied with the franks? as far as I know, the abbassids, persians and romans considered the Franks and all non-roman Europeans as backward and uncivilized barbarians, not worthy of real diplomatic contact
@@terro3842 Charles was defeated at nabronne 737, charlmange managed to expanded and conquered the major of erouope region but couldn't take over lberia he was failed on his campaign and basque people was under umayyad battle was also involed by Sulayman al-Arabi who was served under umayyad
@@The-Last-Caliphate It was after. Then following ALL the Muslims were defeated again and again as they ran cowardly from battle until Spain was retaken. Similarly, Muslims ran and ran from the 67 war with Israel where the Jews were outnumbered significantly but they had heart while the Muslims armies did not. Another example was when the Caliphate was finally crushed and there was no more islamic empire at the end of WW1, you found it was the Muslims fighting Muslims so there is no caliphate anymore. Nice username. There is no caliphate anymore.
@lleyTheSnakeHunter I am not disputing the fact that Muslims get defeated in battle. I was trying to show you if you haven't already noticed a pattern here. When non-Muslims capture our lands, it doesn't take us more than a century to reclaim them and come back even stronger than before and we go Khalid Ibn Al-Walid mode again. But when we conquer a land of non-Muslims, it takes them decades to do a come back if at all. examples: We remained in Al-Andalus 700 years. We remained in Constantinople for 571 years so far. We had Jerusalem for 332 years before the Fatimid empire took it from us (Shia are disbelievers for us). We had Jerusalem again for 730 years after kicking out the crusaders. Now, how long have the disbelievers been in Muslim lands for? Crusaders in Jerusalem 88 years. Mongols 55 years and we sent them back home as Muslims (funny they chose Islam over Christianity even though they were teaming up with them and marrying from them) Zionists 76 years (and there's already a strong military resistance going full scale against them). Liberal colonialism? maximum 132 years in Algeria by France. This is the bigger picture of history. And the reason is we don''t ppiss off the locals. We don't mass genocide them like Israel, France, USA, Crusaders, Mongols and Shia. You wanna stay in a land, control your weapons. That's the only way. Genocide is like a boomerang. By the way, you are Christian, you can't flex Jewish wins.
@@MarkPelleyTheSnakeHunter About the Caliphate. the Caliphate is already here. Towards the end of the Ottoman Caliphate, the Ottomans were weak so they had to collapse. The west ceased the opportunity to get to Palestine and they were successful but they brought all this science fiction tech to Palestine risking it being taken by Palestinians which can enable them to bring an even stronger Caliphate in Palestine. Now, it's just a matter of time until Palestinian soldiers are married to Israeli tech and then what? traitor Egypt, Jordan, KSA go down. Shia Lebanon, Syria nd Iraq go down. Iran ends up between two Jihadi powers: Al-Quds and Kabul. which means Iran goes down as well. Tadaaaa! Caliphate🎉. And you know what's interesting? some of these events are described in Islamic eschatology: It is mentioned that 7 Arab princes will fall at once and the Caliphate will one day be based in Al-Quds. It makes perfect sense now if Israel collapses which it definitely will. It will spark a lot of jokes about how the west basically just strengthened the Caliphate (from divided Ottomans to Unite Palestinians) just like they strengthened Taliban.
The first modern historian to suggest that this battle saved Christianity and Western Civilization was Edward Gibbon. And it's true as well, although some modern historians dispute this. Even Will Durant said that only the victory at Tours kept the Bible being replaced by the Koran.
You do not know anything about the history of Islam and Muslims There are millions of Christians inside the Arab and Islamic world.. and there is no one who kills them, tortures them, erases or prevents the reading of the Bible.. You are wrong and do not know anything about Muslims.
@@ryojs4286they’ve been there under persecution. True the first year of muslim conquest was benevolent, but as the Muslim population grow not by conversion but by Islam’s birth rate due to polygamy, persecution against Christians intensified. You can see this happened in Lebanon aswell, the Christian-Muslim population was balanced but in the 60s and 70s the demographics changed because of Muslim’s high birthrate and as a result Muslim persecution towards a Christians intensified. Islam is truly a religion geared for war, not peace.
@@ryojs4286 And you have not heard of the persecution of Coptic christians🤣 and recently the 20 or so martyrs . With the Umayyads, Berber North African christians were forced to convert, Cordoba Martyrs, Maronite suppression in Lebanon ; Abbasids made the christians were special clothing, churches demolished ,christians banned from any high post , scapegoated for issues ; Fatimids destroyed basically the Christian Kaaba (Church of Holy Sepulchre) ; Ottomans: Armenian, Assyrian, Anatolian Greek Genocide , Devshirme system converted Christian boys forcibly to Islam leading to mothers even cutting of hands and feet of their children to protect them .
@@ryojs4286 Buddhists, Christians, Hindus, and other non-muslims are under constant attack in muslim-invaded countries, and their numbers diminishing. Many are only allowed to survive because of the low caste labor and extra taxes they provide, based on their dhimmi status.
I disagree, because at that time the Umayyad caliphate was the centre of civilisation, science and art. And Andalusia wasn’t a civilised country until Islam came and completely changed it.
@@Alsaegh96 bs. The southern spanish provinces were some of the most rich and influential of Rome, where some of the most important roman emperor born, like Trajan and Hadrian. And Andalusia is not a "country". And how could be the peak/centre of art of the moment When literally reject whole genres like sculpture and painting.
@@Alsaegh96 By "human civilization" they mean Northern European races. The Vandals, and Goths who brought Rome (+Western Europe) to the dark ages were Germanic (Vandals +Goths), Normans, Franks and Vikings were Northern Europeans.
@@Alsaegh96 Apart of your personal opinion you're relatively right because this raid/battle has been so unimportant that even Arabs historians merely mentioned it.
@@WissHH- of course, no one is denying that, just like no one can deny the fact that when the Muslims came to the Iberian peninsula they found little resistance so clearly Spain was weekend when the Muslims took control. And Andalusia is actually a country established even before Umayyad role. And about art… I recommend you to search about “Ziryab” he is basically why classical Spanish music is so beautiful, and don’t forget about calligraphy, and the great philosophers of Islam like “Ibn rushd”, thanks to him Greek philosophy is still alive and he is the one who brought it back to Europe after it was lost.
The history of France is rich of epic battles which were decisive for history of Europe ; battle of Catalaunic fields against Attila the Hun , battle of Poitiers against the Muslims
Man, I love these videos from HistoryMarche. I love how the narration is very serious but the little pop-ups are little jokes and funny plays with numerous modern day meme-like comments. "Single and ready to mingle", "Aww, Hell Naww!!". Very funny. As for the battle, what can be said. Checking the advance of invaders helped keep Europe free (as much as it could be in medieval Europe). This battle rivals the Siege at Vienna in 1683 as one of the most historic battles of Europe.
Excellent narrative. This particular battle is always of interest, for its role in deciding whether Europe would fall to Islam or not. France and Europe face the same question today, but it is a conquest without guns.
Bro my respect from Great King Charles Martel but real heroes and saved europa Bizantyne Emperator Leo3 and Bulgarian Ruler Tervel.Defend 100k Mighty arabian army.battle Poaties kids game vs sige Constantinopol 717-718
Yeah, but the crusades were three centuries after this battle. But this battle is also thought to the first instance of Europeans thinking of themselves as Europeans.
@@PeninsularArab127 I'm not saying one justifies the other. Just that there's an even deeper relationship with these waring cultures. I could easily see these battles being brought up around campfires as the Crusades began.
@@xslonk Of course it justifies it, as well as French colonialism in North Africa, they clearly invaded Europe first. I don’t want to hear any more crying about either in the modern day, they drew first blood, and couldn’t handle the heat.
@Jake Mocci Dude, vandal from europe, rome from europe also invade africa before this moor incursion into europe I hope you don't cry the influx of africans in europe dominating the workforce and sports in this modern times
Exactly. The much maligned Crusades were actually the belated Christian response to hundreds of years of Muslim predation on Christians. North Africa and most of the middle east used to be Christian you know until the Muslim horde converted the populace by force. No one today makes movies about the barbaric Islamic religious imperialism in the early medieval period, rather we are told to view it as the Golden Age of Islam, my ass. But the Christian response to liberate the Holy Land from the Mohameddens is seen as bad today? WHAT GARBAGE! Today there are still Muslims who call Spain Al-Andalus and preach about retaking it.
the only real reason why why the Ummyads did follow up and take revenge is due to severe internal turmoil and revolutions in the empire, and this battle occurred when the empire was on its first steps of decline
the umayyads considered france as unknown, dark and uncivilized place. that's why the umayyad caliph withdrew the capable conqueror Tariq ibn ziyad from the battlefront and ordered him to visit him in Damascus, instead of invading france. if france had any relevance, like kufa, Damascus or Libya, the Caliphate would take conquering it more seriously instead of sending a random raid army there. the christians, due to their miserable sea of defeats against the early Muslims, exagerate the meaning of the battle of tours, in order to have a quantum of success against an early islamic Caliphate
@@akiogood4712 Bruh, France was formerly the extremely wealthy Roman province of GAUL and beyond the Pyrenees, the Umayyad’s wanted a foothold outside Iberia as a sallying point to take Western Europe. You must think they were uneducated barbarians to suggest the Umayyads thought France was this dark place. These weren’t the Rashiduns, they were WELL AWARE of the significance of these territories and their history, why you think they started calling their money “Dinars” around this time (after the roman denarius), not to mention their constant attempts to take Constantinople?
@@FlaviusBelisarius-ck6uv again you miss the point, no more expansion for the Ummyad due to severe internal unrest, and they were very hated by their subjects both by Muslims and non-Muslims
Siege of constantinople was more important, sources viewed battle of tour as skrmkish and it was just raid for looting cities. Even after umayyad defeat in tour they continuously leading expedition into francia terroties they also manage to defeat charles in nabronne 737, umayyad had no intentionally of conquering france terrorties but rather focusing more in loots and spoils and golds, that explains during battle odo attacked their camp then suddenly umayyad army retreat and headed back to their camp to rescue their loots and spolis ended up in their defeat abd rahman fought barvely didn't order his army to retreat camp to protecting spolis, it was his decision result half of his army retreat to camp as soon as odo attacking their camp then disasters occured among umayyad army lines which was a good opportunity for frankish to advance, before retreat camp the umayyad was fighting well and advancing frankish, charles was under pressure couldn't do anything but stick in defense, he did a good move by sending odo to attack their camp otherwise charles would be defeated
Actually, It was the Prince of Provence who finally liberated what is now France from the Muslim raiders. He decisively defeated the Saracens at their slave base at Fraxenetum in 970. He then took the slave base and chased away the Muslim survivors, who disappeared from history. This victory was far more decisive and final. Tours was merely a defeated raid.
Still, the fact is, Arabs took Spain and southern France amd parts of switzerland in 2,5 Years. It took Europe 800 years to take it from them. I am Arab and proud of my ancestors
Although I am an Arab and a Muslim, but you deserve a like and a comment, because you are truly a person who considers the right to me yours and yours. I hope that the battles of the Prophet Muhammad will descend, the battle of the parties or the trench
Five years later, the Muslims returned and Charles Martel led his forces to a spectacular and bloody victory outside the walls of Narbonne at the Battle of the River Berre.
Sources didn't viewed battle tour as not important battle, tour was skrmkish and raid even after tour the umayyad still continuously expedition and raiding into francia terrorties which the battle didn't stop umayyad they also defeated charles at nabronne 737, umayyad weren't intentionally to conquering francia but rather than raiding and marching into terroties to plunder cities for spolies and golds, abd rahman and his army was focusing for loots with no stragic goal and planning for battles but countine raiding for loots till as soon as they reach tour they coincidencely confront charles and engaging with franks army depsite the umayyad did a good charging attack on them and managed to push franks and advancing them they put charles under pressure and bad position had stuck in defensive and ressist them, the umayyad weren't fighting in faith but for the seek of loots, when charles send forces under odo to attack their camp they distract umayyad army and result in splitting army lines and causes umayyad army to be diviving and broke out ranks ended up half their army return their camp to protecting their spolies which was of their reasons defeated in tour
The Arab presence in south western France lasted 40 years and their intentions were for permanent occupation. Tours is VERY FAR from the pyrenees and only about 150 miles from Paris. Mere raids don't occur hundreds of miles into enemy territory. And the Arabs were fighting battles all the way to Tours and it's said the river Garonne ran red with the blood of innocents. According to historian Michael Ray, editor of the Encyclopedia Britannica: "...Charles's victory is widely believed to have stopped the northward advance of Umayyad forces from the Iberian Peninsula and to have prevented the Islamization of Western Europe..." According to historian Paul K. Davis in his book "100 Decisive Battles From Ancient Times To The Present", estimated the Muslim force at 80,000 men. That's not a raiding party but full on invasion. Historian Victor Davis Hanson estimates the Muslim force at about 30,000, still far more than a raid. Historian Robert W. Martin has called Tours ""one of the most decisive battles in all of history." Historian Paul Davis has written: "had the Muslims been victorious at Tours, it is difficult to suppose what population in Europe could have organized to resist them." Victor Davis Hanson has written that : "...What is clear is that [Tours-Poitiers] marked a general continuance of the successful defense of Europe, (from the Muslims). Flush from the victory at Tours, Charles Martel went on to clear southern France from Islamic attackers for decades, unify the warring kingdoms into the foundations of the Carolingian Empire, and ensure ready and reliable troops from local estates..." You are wrong about Narbonne. Charles wasn't defeated but his siege could not breach the walls, whereas he had liberated Arab occupied cities such as Nimes, Beziers, and Arles (covering a wide area of southern France) and absolutely destroyed the large Arab army outside the walls of Narbonne when he pushed them into a swamp where their horses were of no use. Here's what wikipedia says about the second great victory of Charles Martel five years after the battle of Tours: "The (Arab) army attempting to relieve Narbonne met Charles in open battle at the Battle of the River Berre and was destroyed." The Franks eventually freed Narbonne in 759.
@@henryquenin6580 I have explained you about the suitation the arab had no intention of conquering francia they wanted to raid region to plundering cities for loots then left it to pass another city without influence theur stablizing its sounds like more than party raid, raids can be occured in far miles distance than you expected, arabs fighting during raid in battles when they won battle of river gannone they didn't bother chase defeated army and their leader duke they went another way to countine their raidings for spolies, some of modern historians wanted make battle like it was more than raid so their claims are baised but rather giving their bais opnion trying to denied the historical facts this wont works, robert claimed its one of the most decisive battle in history he coping without no sense there hunderds of battle were more important and descivie than tour that changed history unlike tour didn't inflect major defeat to arab neither preventing arabs from advancing into francia as their raid was continuously into terroties even after tour, siege consantinople 717 was the most major defeat to arabs and most sources even islamic viewed siege 717 as most important battle its funny how those historians wanted to bais in their opnion trying to amplifying battle in their delusion, the numbers are quite exaggerate for reason cuz the army in lberia dont had that sizeable of army numbers the totoally army were 30k lberia they cant fieled those army to raid and left lberia unguarded without no army, the fact army were less than 15k and second caliph didn't support the inavsion into francia cuz caliph order to stop invasion he ordered tariq and musa to stop advancing into erouope, raid was done by army in andulas which they weren't well supplied For nabronne it was well defense than those cities taken by charlie, charlie took part north of nabronne he was defeated and retreat when he heard about the incoming arab renforcement army to nabronne he left and was prepare for their arrival he preforemd superior attack and ambush umayyad army in river berre, nabronne was fell during andulas internal conflicts
A very small group of French knights, with support from no Christian princes, in the battle of Malta held off the huge army and navy of the Turkish sultan. Had the knights lost Italy France and Spain would have been invaded and conquered.
There were other Muslim invasions...North Africa, Persia, India and even China. At least the Chinese managed to repel the invaders. India had to endure several 100 years of Muslim slavery. Even in the 1800s Muslims pirates were kidnapping and enslaving Americans until Jefferson and Adams put and end to the Barbary pirates.
Obviously French leaders a 1000+ years later DIDN'T learn their OWN HISTORY about Muslims and Islam. Now the French people have a helluva price to pay for a very long time.
17:28 Here is my sacrificial comment for the algorithm! All hail the algorithm! Also, what I like about these videos is they explain the context leading up to the battles, rather than focusing just on the battles themselves.
This battle in particular, or Andalusia in general, should be taught in schools. This battle literally changed history forever, but unfortunately it was for the worse (as a Muslim I do not want offensive comments as usual)
"We are not TERR_R_st!!!" "I have been made victorious with t*rr*r " Chapter 57 The Book Of Jihad Book Sahih Bukhari Hadith No 2977 Baab Jihad Ka Bayan Me: Sounds like T_RR_R_st
truly? Is there a man in history who had another group fighting him for 20 years, declared war, and imposed an economic and social siege on him, and then when he defeated them, he forgave them? You will not find anyone other than the Prophet Muhammad. In your military rules: "Kill anything that moves." In Islamic law: “Do not kill a child, a woman, an old person, do not cut down a tree without need, or a man who cannot fight.” Is there even any comparison? Then this hadith, I am sure that you just copied it without even reading it. I have the book in the original language next to me and you do not even know what you are reading. Then I have to remind you, what did you do to the Native Americans? What did you do after the fall of Al-Andalus, the ruler of the Inquisition? Who fought the two world wars? Who invaded Africa and stole their wealth? You will not find in Islamic history a person who celebrates the country he entered or brightens it and then just leaves, as you did with Africa and India.@@dhimmi1994
How did the infantry hold against cavalry formations? I heard it was because the infantry was the infantry was hiding in a forest that prevented the full force of the cavalry from bearing down on them, but this makes it seem otherwise.
@@βασιλεύς-ζ4λ yes with the hints of Odo about the Muslims , Charles had chosen a battle field where the cavalry is less effective, and they were using shield wall tactic, and with heavy warriors it was effective.
This video reminds us all, there was a time when Europe defended itself from invasion. Today, the weak leaders and diseased minds invite them into our lands. We need some European Heroes again. Now more than ever.
Look, idiot, there is a difference between the occupier and the conquest. Second, there are a large number of Christians and other religions in the lands of Muslims.
@@عسافالعتيبي-ض2م Muslims belong to the Arab lands, Levant is rightfully ours, north Africa is rightfully ours, Anatolia is rightfully ours, should I continue?
Excellent recounting of this fascinating period - made all the better by your use of a human narrator instead of a simulated one (which seems suddenly and unfortunately to be the thing to do now).
🚩 Go to bit.ly/thld_cs_historymarche and use code HISTORYMARCHE to save 25% off today. Thanks to Curiosity Stream for sponsoring today’s video.
🚩 The Franks, led by Charles Martel, met the Muslim army commanded by Abd al-Rahman, the Umayyad governor of Spain, in early October 732 AD. Some have argued that this brief conflict influenced the fate of Christian civilization in Europe, while others see it as a simple border skirmish. The truth, it seems, lies somewhere in-between.
🚩 Support HistoryMarche on Patreon and get ad-free early access to our videos for as little as $1: www.patreon.com/historymarche
hey HM great video as always but please explain/clarify....at 15:30 you say Al Rahman is killed by javelin or arrow show, and at the end in Footnote nr2 you say al Rahman consolidated his position etc etc?
Battle of Uhud next?
Siege of constantinople was more important, sources viewed battle of tour as skrmkish and it was just raid for looting cities. Even after umayyad defeat in tour they continuously leading expedition into francia terroties they also manage to defeat charles in nabronne 737, umayyad had no intentionally of conquering france terrorties but rather focusing more in loots and spoils and golds, that explains during battle odo attacked their camp then suddenly umayyad army retreat and headed back to their camp to rescue their loots and spolis ended up in their defeat
abd rahman fought barvely didn't order his army to retreat camp to protecting spolis, it was his decision result half of his army retreat to camp as soon as odo attacking their camp then disasters occured among umayyad army lines which was a good opportunity for frankish to advance, before retreat camp the umayyad was fighting well and advancing frankish, charles was under pressure couldn't do anything but stick in defense, he did a good move by sending odo to attack their camp otherwise charles would be defeated
@@ciripa The Abd Al Rahman mentioned in this story is Abd al-Rahman ibn (son of) Abd Allah al-Ghafiqi, commander/governor of Al-andalus (Iberia while under the Muslims).
The Abd al-Rahman mentioned in the footnote is Abd al-Rahman I ibn Mu’awiya, future emir of the Emirate of Cordoba. An emir is of higher rank than a commander/governor. Also look up the Wikipedia record of how he became an emir - it's amazing!
A continuation of the series would be amazing looking at islamic rule in france (maybe the continued conquest in provence after this loss, peppin defating and removing them from france, and the return of muslims rule in france in franxtium)
Although many battles are won by flanking and cavalry charges, there's something fundamentally appealing in seeing a well drilled and experienced infantry based army.
🤦♂️
Umayyad experience definitely counts. But it was more about the Franks not having enough cavalry that stopped them from doing more damage.
@@Ragnarok__ they used quality ideas
But it didn't happen like this
@@newonevery740 I was there. It definitely did
the fact that cavalry was sent straight into enemy infantry shows how dominant cavalry typicaly was , it took nerves to hold that ground when faced with the thunder of hooves and that is shown throughout history : it takes veteran infantry (typicaly) to withstand this onslaught
JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA : "... , it remains a fact that the Jews, either directly or through their coreligionists in Africa, encouraged the Mohammedans to conquer Spain and that they greeted them as their deliverers. After the battle of Jerez (711), in which African Jews fought bravely under Kaula al-Yahudi, and in which the last Gothic king, Rodrigo, and his nobles were slain, the conquerors Musa and Ṭariḳ were everywhere victorious. The conquered cities Cordova, Malaga, Granada, Seville, and Toledo were placed in charge of the Jewish inhabitants, who had been armed by the Arabs. The victors removed the disabilities which had oppressed the Jews so heavily, and granted them full religious liberty, requiring them to pay only the tribute of one golden dinar per capita (Adolf do Castro, "Historia de los Judios en España," pp. 33 et seq.; Rios, "Hist." i. 106 et seq.; G. van Vlooten, "Recherches sur la Domination Arabe," Amsterdam, 1894).
A new era now dawned for the Jews of the Pyrenean peninsula, whose number had been considerably augmented by those who had followed the Arab conquerors, as well as by later immigrants from Africa. Hardly a decade after the conquest, however, many Jews left their new home in order to follow a man named Serenus (Zanora, Zonaria) who had appeared in Syria and had proclaimed himself the Messiah (721); the governor, Anbasa (Ambisa), who was collecting enormous sums for the fiscus, confiscated the property of the emigrating Jews for this purpose. Under the Ommiad 'Abd al-Raḥman I., whose greatness is said to have been foretold by a learned Jew who became his adviser, a flourishing kingdom was established, of which Cordova was the center. During 'Abd al-Raḥman's reign the Jews devoted themselves to the service of the califate, to the study of the sciences, and to commerce and industry, especially to trading in silk and slaves, in this way promoting the prosperity of the country. Southern Spain became an asylum for the oppressed Jews of other parts. Bodo-Eleazar, a convert to Judaism, went to Cordova, where he is said to have endeavored to win proselytes for Judaism from among the Spanish Christians; but that the mass of the Spanish Jews of the period in question hated the Christians and aimed at making proselytes is not correct.
Under 'Abd al-Rahman I. and Al-Ḥakim.
The reigns of 'Abd al-Raḥman I. (called Al-Nasir; 912-961) and his son Al-Ḥakim were the golden era for the Spanish Jews and Jewish science. 'Abd al-Raḥman's court physician and minister was Ḥasdai ben Isaac ibn Shaprut, the patron of Menahem ben Saruḳ, Dunash ben Labraṭ, and other Jewish scholars and poets. During his term of power the scholar Moses ben Enoch was appointed rabbi of Cordova, and as a consequence Spain became the center of Talmudic study, and Cordova the meeting-place of Jewish savants. After the downfall of Al-Ḥakim, who likewise favored the Jews, a struggle for the throne broke out between Sulaiman ibn al-Ḥakim and Mohammed ibn Hisham. Sulaiman solicited the assistance of Count Sancho of Castile, while Mohammed, through the agency of wealthy Jewish merchants in Cordova, obtained the aid of Count Ramon of Barcelona. For this Sulaiman took fearful revenge upon the Jews, expelling them mercilessly from city and country (1013).
With the overthrow of the Banu Amir the power of the Mohammedan state in Spain came to an end,the mighty califate of Cordova being divided into twelve minor states under different califs. The Abbadites ruled in Seville, the Hammudites in Malaga, the Zayrids in Granada, the Beni-Hud in Saragossa, and others in Almeria, Toledo, Valencia, Niebla, etc. Several Jews left Cordova for Malaga, Granada, Toledo, Murcia, and Saragossa.
The arab/muslim cavalry of that era wasnt known exactly for being a heavy cavalry, but rather a fast, very mobile and versatile cavalry. That's one of the many reasons they defeated the heavy cavalry of the sassanids, and it's probably one of the reasons of their defeat at tours.
yes but heavy infantry can withstand near any attack light cavalry can throw at it and hand it back twice as hard, whilst organised
@@istoppedcaring6209 When the kingdom of the Persians came to an end, in the days of their king Khosro 1, the kingdom of the children of Hagar at once gained control over more or less the whole world, for they took the whole kingdom of the Persians. overthrowing all their warriors who prided themselves in the arts of war.
We should not think of the advent (of the children of Hagar) as something ordinary, but as due to divine working. Before calling them, (God) had prepared them beforehand to hold Christians in honour, thus they also had a special commandment from God concerning our monastic station, that they should hold it in honour. Now when these people came, at God's command, and took over as it were both kingdoms, not with any war or battle, but in a menial fashion, such as when a brand is rescued out of the fire; not using weapons of war or human means. God put victory into their hands in such a way that the words written concerning them might be fulfilled, namely, 'One man chased a thousand and two men routed ten thousand'! How, otherwise, could naked men, riding without armour or shield, have been able to win, apart from divine aid, God having called them from the ends of the earth so as to destroy, by them, a sinful kingdom, and to bring low, through them. the proud spirit of the Persians.
Only a short period passed before the entire world was handed over to the Arabs; they subdued all the fortified cities, taking control from sea to sea 2, and from East to West - Aigyptos and the whole of Mesrin, and from Crete to Cappadocia, from Yahelman 3 to the gates of Alan, Armenians, Syrians. Persians, Byzantines, Egyptians and all the intermediary regions: their hand was upon everyone, as the prophet says. Only half the Byzantine empire was left by them.
Who can relate the carnage they effected in Greek territory, in Kush, in Spain, and in other distant regions, taking captive their sons and daughters and reducing them to slavery and servitude. Against those who had not ceased in times of peace and prosperity from fighting against their Creator, there was sent a barbarian people who had no pity on them.
Having reached thus far, however, in the narrative, let us end this book here, and give praise to Father, Son and Holy Spirit for ever, Amen. JOHN BAR PENKAYE 7th century
@@rfui7675 r 4:20 4:20
“Modern academia always try to malign Christian Crusaders as being conquerors who picked on the poor little ole Muslims but they forget who drew first blood.
And second blood and third, and two-hundredth…
if you think this was the first Muslim-Christian war, you are utterly uneducated. Btw, it is stupid to ask, who was first. Does not matter.
Anti-woke nonsense. Yeah all those Islam supporting academics, while all the universities have shut down non-violent and democratic protests about the genocide in Gaza. You can’t have it both ways.
Romans
@@Hossam_Ahmed_ Islam didn't exist when the Roman empire did.
If you ask me, medieval battles remain the peak of historical battle videos on TH-cam. It feels like there's always something special about them.
Medieval and roman battles top notch of fighting!
All battles are cool to learn about when you aren’t there… little different when you are in the middle of one.
It is because there are many more small-scale tactical decisions. Modern-day fighting requires large logistical thinking and overwhelming amounts of planning. Back then, it was more of a fight for survival at every turn.
@@JamesKovacs first battle of Fallujah , second battle of Fallujah , Abu Ghraib , plus about 5-6 more that the I personally participated in with USMC .. I was involved in about as small scale tactical fighting as you can get.. (hand to hand included) as were many other Marines. Tiny amounts of ammo and water to be rationed out on squad level and smaller. Cut off .. surrounded. Pretty small scale shit.
To me I have the a similar feeling multiplied by 100 when it's a battle in wich Napoleon was a part of, it's the stuff that religions are created of by how insane his victories were as well as the soldiers that followed him they seem like another breed of human capable of winning against all odds to forces sometimes 10 times superior.
Age of Empires 2 Outro:
The soul of the Frankish army was its knights, but Charles Martel knew that his cavalry-undisciplined, buried under weight of weapons and armor-could not match the swiftness of the Muslim riders. Therefore, he ordered the knights to dismount and join ranks with the Frankish swordsmen to form a tight shield-wall.
The Muslims had always conquered with swift offensiveness and were not equipped to counter the Franks' defensive strategy. The arrows of the Muslim archers bounced harmlessly off the heavy Frankish armor, and the light Muslim cavalry could not breach the human chain.
Battered and bleeding, the invaders broke ranks and fled back to the Pyrenees and the protection of Spain. From Charles Martel's Frankish kingdom eventually grew the Holy Roman Empire, making him the founding father of both Germany and France.
German national novel point of view. Not french. East side of the Rhin was conquered rulently (saxon wars).
While western aide of the Rhin autority claim started long time before. Minimum since clovis for the french national novel.
In reality, there is no such thing as natural solidarity around France idea (and so french idea) before Louis VI the fat (XIc).
@@gringologie9302shut up moor
Ugh, no. Charlemagne gets that title and had to kick even more Saxon butt to get it.
The battle of tours would mean nothing without the barrier formed by the tiny christian kingdoms remaining at nothern Spain.
We suffered the whole weight of the islamic forces during years and years preventing them to try again to invade the rest of Europe.
The last attempt took place on July 1212 at "Las Navas de Tolosa" were a big Almoravid army, arrived from Morocco and intended to "take breakfast at Rome" was defeated by a coalition of all iberian kingdoms togheder with english, french and german knights.
And yes, all those continuos waste of blood, all those dark years, seem to have been worth for nothing 😢
The struggle forged an iron fist of a nation that created an Empire.
And if the Battle of Tours never happened...??? "would mean nothing".. Sure, yeah, ok buddy.. 🙄
Keep 'em coming!
Thank you so much for the support. Very kind of you.
Musl8ms? Yes of course 😂
Their Tour de France ends at Tours.
An amazingly rare example of an army not routing when their top commander was killed.
There must have been an effective chain of command, there must have been a second in command. This would explain how the same night the army was leaderless, it made an organised retreat.
Don't forget the feodal system: many lords obeyed their superior because of the "hommage" system. The killing of a leader freeded his vassals, who may choose according to their heart or to some complex secondary allegiances, to the point of reversing the outcome of the battle. It was not very important here, but it was particularly important in other battles, such as Kosovo.
This is due to the nature of the muslim faith rather than mere technicalities and battle analysis. When such things happen to muslims, they go into the Japanese Kamakazi mode but in their own flavor becoming serious shit to defeat.
@@Mich4elCorleone non sense.
@@MN-vz8qm say that to the Afghans
Nothing better to end a week than see HistoryMarche upload a new video
Big facts
Arabs tried to invade trough balkans around same time but they were stopped by the Byzantines and Bulgarians
,, ,, "G - D, WILL'S, I T, !!,
incorrect. The Arabs tried twice to take Constantinople, but did not succeed. The Balkans not at all.
Which battle was it again that prevented them from expanding?
@@senseishu937 The city of Constatinople. The sieges failed twice.
@@senseishu937 Siege of Constantinople (717-718) and the Tours 732
Thanks for the amazing videos!
Thank you so much for the support! Very kind of you
Always interesting and informative. As a retired military officer I can asolutely appreciate the discussion of tactics and politics in each episode
is this accurate enough to use as a source
I've got about two thousand hours in bannerlord and crusader kings 3 so I'm right there with you.
Kudos to HistoryMarche. You sit permanently in my subscriptions because you keep putting good quality content. Thumbs up!
My comment sacrifice to the algorithm 👍🏻
As a Cajun with ancestors in the Iberian peninsula, I thank you for this work.
It is amazing that these videos can be more entertaining that movies and tv series (while also being highly educational)
Outstanding, your channel wipes the floor with anything on cable, keep up the good work.
This has quickly become my favorite channel on youtube. By far the most detailed maps, amazing commentary, and consistent interesting content. I think you should cover the mongol conquest of southern song!
so glad you covered this battle. one of those battles that really does show how if a different outcome had occurred Europe and world history would have been completely different
No way bruz. The northerners are undefeated. They beat rome. The arabs got nothing on that.
@@chrisrace744 Wait... what? Hehe... Have you been to Sweden recently? Germany? Netherlands? Or maybe, to anywhere in Europe? It appears that the North did eventually fall to the "arabs", and they used the same tactics they used to get into Spain in 711 - the treason of those in charge of protecting their own people.
They've almost completely lost the current war against the Monoculture
@@chrisrace744 Had Muslims won, following would happen:
1. South france under Muslim control with no threat of reversal.
2. Without the Patronage of a strong Frankish empire in this timeline, there would be No Central Authority of Catholic Pope in Europe.
3. This would give Muslims to play a big Religious Diplomacy i.e, inviting pagan Germanic tribes/kingdoms north of France to Islam e.g, (Polish-lithuanian, baltics, Vikings etc.)
4. Vikings may also have accepted Islam seeing strong Muslim presence in Mediterranean and even in Atlantic. (Andalusia had a strong navy on Atlantic coast and defeated a Viking naval invasion as well)
@@chrisrace744 who beat Rome, Gauls or Muslim Arabs? you are on a history channel, so dont embarrass yourself!
This battle brings back good memories of the Age of Empires 2 campaign. Something that I find striking is the fact that France, the country where great importance has always been attached to using its formidable cavalry to achieve victories, has ended up winning one of the most important battles in not only its entire history, but also in the entire West, with an army made up entirely of infantry; I don't know what others think, but it seems quite ironic to me. XD
It really wasn’t that important. Had the Muslims won they would have presumably just kept raiding monasteries as there was no real value in conquering France during this period. This battle took place before the “medieval optimum” so the climate would have made france absolutely miserable to live in. Nothing grew there and the population was very small unskilled. Before modern historians like Gibbons nobody even knew much about this battle other than it was fought by Charles Martell who was related to Charlemagne.
@@lumanate1493 But in case of a Muslim victory, wouldn't it have changed the fate of Septimania and even Toulouse and some Aquitanian territories? Without Oddo, the Franks would have seized the land south of Loire river, and would have perhaps achieve a status quo with the masters of Narbonne then Toulouse.
The Reconquista would have still happened, though.
@@rjbmarchiac8693
Sources didn't viewed battle tour as not important battle, tour was skrmkish and raid even after tour the umayyad still continuously expedition and raiding into francia terrorties which the battle didn't stop umayyad they also defeated charles at nabronne 737, umayyad weren't intentionally to conquering francia but rather than raiding and marching into terroties to plunder cities for spolies and golds, abd rahman and his army was focusing for loots with no stragic goal and planning for battles but countine raiding for loots till as soon as they reach tour they coincidencely confront charles and engaging with franks army depsite the umayyad did a good charging attack on them and managed to push franks and advancing them they put charles under pressure and bad position had stuck in defensive and ressist them, the umayyad weren't fighting in faith but for the seek of loots, when charles send forces under odo to attack their camp they distract umayyad army and result in splitting army lines and causes umayyad army to be diviving and broke out ranks ended up half their army return their camp to protecting their spolies which was of their reasons defeated in tour
@@ghostd69 look an Muslim lair
@@lumanate1493 France was the most populated area in Europe at the time since the down of the western Roman empire wtf are you trying to say ?
And Aquitaine alone was richer than all Hispanic peninsula.
The first crusade began in 1096 ... just to put some things into perspective
lowered
I hope this will be followed by a series on Reconquista! But a series on Carolingian expansion would be awesome too! Thanks for the great video!
Didn’t they already do a series on that? I know it was not as detailed and focused mainly on Charlemagne but it is still very informative
@@williamrobert9898 There is a video about the battle that "Song of Roland" references
@@BunnyhopsX song of roland?
@@senseishu937 yeah. Its a french song that talks about battle od Roncevaux pass between forces of Charlemagne and Basques (in the song there are no Basques but Saracens). And the song talks about last moments of Roland, a knight serving Charlemagne.
Sources didn't viewed battle tour as not important battle, tour was skrmkish and raid even after tour the umayyad still continuously expedition and raiding into francia terrorties which the battle didn't stop umayyad they also defeated charles at nabronne 737, umayyad weren't intentionally to conquering francia but rather than raiding and marching into terroties to plunder cities for spolies and golds, abd rahman and his army was focusing for loots with no stragic goal and planning for battles but countine raiding for loots till as soon as they reach tour they coincidencely confront charles and engaging with franks army depsite the umayyad did a good charging attack on them and managed to push franks and advancing them they put charles under pressure and bad position had stuck in defensive and ressist them, the umayyad weren't fighting in faith but for the seek of loots, when charles send forces under odo to attack their camp they distract umayyad army and result in splitting army lines and causes umayyad army to be diviving and broke out ranks ended up half their army return their camp to protecting their spolies
They stopped in 732 but they are not stopping now.
Awareness of the foolish, futility of all religion is what will stop it now.
The leaders of our lands have become complacent.they assume that Moslems are " nice",and " harmless".yet the aims of those Moslems have not changed.
No
This is the first HistoryMarche video I have ever come across. I enjoyed the format greatly, including the humorous captioning on the banners.
Eventhough everyone knows, it's always a good day when one see's a HistoryMarche upload, still got to make a Sacrifice for it.
Hoping to see you guy's pop the 1 mil mark soon!
Finally! Been waiting for someone to do a video on Tours. Such an important battle.
Remembered playing this campain in AOE2 and loved it, keep up the good work👍
Wait what is this a mod or it was a formable
@@contagoustoxicity its in the age of conquerors expansion
This channel is one of my favorite historical coverage channels...good luck and best wishes for History Marche channel....it was informative and enjoyable introduced
Yeah,.I like it more than Kings and Generals,.People's Profile's is fantastic storytelling as well~
As a French, we learnt that Charles Martel stopped the Musilims at Poitiers, not at Tours
Even in France we used to call it "Battle of Tours" a long time ago, then we changed it for "Battle of Poitiers" but the rest of the world kept calling of "Battle of Tours". The truth is we don't know exactly where it happened and it was probably somewhere between Tours and Poitiers lol.
@@viviyep thanks for this, i didn't know that
@@artquimine2170 avec plaisir ;)
History has always been “His Story” 🤷🏽
@viviyep
Interesting, in germany its known as the battle of Tours and Poitiers, at least that is how i learned it in school
when the muslim army was more worried about the loot than the victory itself. reminds me of Ohod battle. we never learn.
Soldiers at this time didnt get paid a salary. They are paid with a portion of loot. I think most army at the time is like this. (Unless you are personal retinue of a noble). The bulk of the army are just levied peasants.
i agree with you. however the creed of muslim armies and what actually made them win battles were that they were "fearless" and their moto was called " either victory or martyrsim". read about yarmuk battle or any battle on the early stages of islam expansions.
@@timoalx10 I'm sure there are some soldiers who think they are doing gods work. But the vast majority are there for chances to loot and plunder. Hate to say it, but being greedy is just part of human nature.
true.... hence loosing this battle.
The same mistake but dont say "we never learn". Mistakes happen from time to time. As Allah says in the Quran:
"If a wound should touch you - there has already touched the [opposing] people a wound similar to it. *And these days [of varying conditions] We alternate among the people* so that Allāh may make evident those who believe and [may] take to Himself from among you martyrs - and Allāh does not like the wrongdoers" Surah 3:140
I just love historie and Old battles keep it up thanks
King of France Charles "The Hammer" Martel, whom the pope himself crowned "Emperor of the Romans", he was the grandfather of Charlemagne, in France, Rodrigo Díaz de Vivar, Prince of Valencia, aka El Cid (from the Arabic honorific as-Sayyid) in Spain, Count Vlad III Dracula (yes that Dracula), whom the pope called "A Catholic Warrior" in Wallachia (a region in Romania including Transylvania) and Bulgaria, János Hunyadi, regent of Hungary, whom the Pope called "Christ's Champion", in Hungary and Serbia and John III Sobieski, King of Poland, whom the Pope called "the Savior of Christendom, who lead the Winged Hussars in defending Vienna and routed the muslims in Austria collectively saved Europe and Western civilization.
Vienna wasn't so important that it's fall would mean the fall of Europe
all that just to open the gates wide open a few centuries later.
The Pope never crowned Charles Martel Emperor, that was Charlemagne. Is this a fucking AI comment because half of it makes no sense and isn’t related?
Woww you're expert & briliant..thank you 🙏
Charles the Hammer was a bonofide legend!
Thank you so much for this amazing content, you're the best!
Yep best history channel
Bonofide?
Bona fide?
Great move by Charles but if you want to learn about a real magician on the battlefield look up Khalid Ibn Walid
@@enthusiast0 You wanna see real magic on the battlefield? Sassanid General Shahbaraz, totally underrated.
@@FlaviusBelisarius-ck6uv
His army was defeated in battle of dhi al qar
One of history's epic turning points!
@JZ's BFF not all battles are the same. A lot of fuss is made about the Polish hussar charge against Ottomans, but its likely that without this victory the Polish would have been muslim in the first place
@JZ's BFF like I said, it's thought of as a turning point for Muslim expansion from the east but without Charles Martel's victory its possible that the west at that time would have been muslim in the first place
@JZ's BFF there were Polish Muslim Tartars who took part in the relief of Vienna and Christians who took part in the attack under Turkish direction. In 1453 there were Christians who took part in the attack and Muslims who took part in the defence no cause is perfect or pure!
I have been signed up to curiosity stream for like 5 months I signed up last time your sponsored them, it is so worth the what 7-8$ a month there are hundreds of videos from murder, history, war, science, space and much more it is so worth signing up for it.
Odo seems to be a pretty underrated historical figure
Most Goths are~
@@matthewmatt5285 I don’t think he was a Goth.
@@duaneaikins4621 Sounds as such,.
Either way doesn't make it less True~
@@matthewmatt5285 Odonis in Latin, Odon or Eudes in French, Odo in English, Otto in German ...
@@matthewmatt5285 Eudes is not gothic.
I've always had lots of respect for this channel for displaying all kinds of battles in such an accurate and entertaining way. It makes people more interested in watching and learning history... XD
Even though they lost this battle and obviously many others, the Arabs have made such a big influence and a major deal of expansion in such little time it's insane. They had many great commanders and strategists, winning many battles while often being outnumbered and undergeared compared to their foes.
they outnumbered the franks and had more cavalry than the franks in this battle
@@HarrDarr Exhausted soldiers
After the Battle of Bordeaux
in a strange land
And the cold weather they are not used to
The world would be a better place without Arabs to be fair
There a lot of reasons for their expansion unrelated to their fighting prowess. I would also argue that they outnumbered their opponent more often then not. The Eastern Roman Empire and the Sassanid empire had a long running fued that lasted on and off for 300 years, but a 30 year war that concluded 5 years before the Battle of Yarmouk. This battle divided the Eastern Roman Empire in two, and fractured the North African portion into provinces not cohesive nation. Not to mention the plague of Justinian in 541 and continued for 250 years. The result is in 10 years it wiped out half of the Roman Empire population and ravaged the younger generation every 10-15 years for 250 years. This plague did not really affect the Arabs at all until they started capturing large junks of territory. The rise of the Avars and Bulgars to the north of the Eastern Roman Empire also divided the e priory attention. A good podcast is the history of Byzantium if you want an easy to follow narrative.
@@Agrippa871I mean the Arabs had come off a massive civil war and subjugation of the other powerful Arab tribes and nations in the ridda wars while the war between the Persians and Byzantium was happening too so yeah they weren't exactly a fresh force either. Plus according to many sources they were in fact outnumbered in most of the major battles against them because they were fighting on two fronts after all against the two superpowers of the time.
The EU needs a "Frank" Approach today !
Wut do you mean?
@@peasant7214He’s using one of the millions of conflicts throughout history to commit racially motivated hate speech.
And the Islamic region needs A new Salahudin to free it😘
against Putin?
Not an actual what if but it is still a video related to the topic of everyone's most asked "what if" question in the end. Thanks for this video about the Battle of Tours!
Absolute W for the whole of mainland Europe
Definetly, kept the Muslims out of Europe, but more importantly Islam, which was the biggest threat to Christianity and to their control and revenue.
@@sj9367yeah because islam can kill Christian
@@sj9367yeah because islam can kill Christian
For the whole of humanity. Arabs today would have nothing our civilization has produced of they'd won back then. No electricity, no internal combustion engine, no internet, no suicide vests, no nothing.
Lost 700 years of civilization
Charlesmagne would cry in heaven after seeing present situation of France
So would Richard the Lionheart upon seeing the state of the United Kingdom, our european leaders have betrayed us
Funny of you to assume he's in heaven ; judging by how he lived his life
He turned Europe into Christianity @@revivalist355
Many Frenchmen like me are crying, as are Britons, Germans, Italians and even Irish are also now being invaded,
@@OlivierVerdys "Aux lances !"
Fun fact : the french call this battle "bataille de Poitiers" and not Tours. There 100 km between these two cities.
Tours , with its exceptional cathedral, was THE target, THE place to loot.
Nicely done.
This battle changed the course of history
Yes but it was merely put on a back burner. They simply bided their time for generations until they could once more invade but against a population that no longer fights back. This time our leaders will welcome the establishment of the new caliphates of Europe. No need for cavalry.
But of course, the Byzantines truly stopped the Muslim armies at Constantinople, for centuries and numerous sieges, while Northern Europe sheltered behind it (and the Pyrenees in the west).
It is good that Arabs liberated Asia and Africa from the Byzantines forever
Nah don’t think so sorry
And it's good that Europe was safe from islam
Excellent work as always HM!
Thanks man, great seeing you during the premiere!
@@HistoryMarchehello, great video as always, btw when are you going to upload Hannibal's next episode?
No mention of the heavy defeat of the Muslims in 737 at the south of Narbonne at the battle of the Berre River , by Charles, where he took by surprise a great Muslim army coming from Spain for helping Narbonne against the siege made by Charles. In this battle it was not about a raid but a strategic battle.
On military point of view it was more important , but because it is linked with the failure of the siege of Narbonne, it is less known. And i guess this is why they use the battle of Tours as symbol.
Eh.
Charles was defeated in battle of nabronne 737 and battle of berre reiver umayyad didn't fielded that large army as you imgaine they were few thousands lberia dont have large army umayyad max were 30k they didn't send all their army to nabronne only some of them, charles ambush them and did superise attack when they were in their way to nabronne
@@ghostd69
20k 30k this is what i have seen...
And the failure of the siege of Narbonne what it means? ...
Well Charles just removed his troops around Narbonne, he didn't had the means tout win the siege and he hag more omportant affairs in the north. This is not a big defeat , unlike the Berre River for the muslims.
@@jean-louispech4921
30k and 20k weren't fielded to this battle they were 10k umayyad army in lberia have totoally of 20k after they lost many of their army tours so they not willing to assemble their entirely army and left lberia unguarded there was continuously internal issue and affairs in lberia to deal with it aswell, charles was itentionally to take over nabronne like he did with rest citites he managed marching into deeply nabronne and umayyad repelled him and forced him leave nabronne and managed to capture narbonne, he only defeat arabs in skrmkish and monior engagement, berre river he ambushed and superise attack renforced army by cutting off their road
Really important point....
I’m french, a long frank bloodline is in my veins. I’m very proud about that.
I'm actually part French with Northern French surname. I find French history and France fascinating
Charlemagne is probably the father of all Europeans, similarly how Genghis Khan's DNA is in tens of millions of people. Powerful and prestigious people used to have powerful and prestigious kids who were prime candidates for marriage
French People with ethnic origin from the north have a high probability to be of Germanic (Frankish) ancestry. Particularly in the Nord Pas de Calais région where the Germanic haplogroup is dominant
Franks are germanic, not all Frenchmen of today have frankish ancestors. Hell, i went to paris this year, it looked like almost everyone has ancestors that fought on the muslim side in this war.
@@nein236 yeah because Frankfort and Berlin look very Germanic these days... didn't know the Kurds and Turks were some sort of Saxon people...
Thank you Charles martel for saving humanity
Are you a murtad ?
@@killerpie5981 of course and proud of it, so why are you asking ?!
@@aliarafat942 I am curious to know why ? Honest question
@@killerpie5981 "morals of the prophet"
No Charles Martel bro but Leo 3 Bizanyne emerator and Bulgaria ruler Tervel.Sige in Constantinolol 717-718.defend 100k arabian Mighty army and saved Europa
This battle was so important,it saved Europe
and the world
@@aqfj5zy all the world know what muslims are
@@aqfj5zy you are racist
Now they invade by stealth - as refugees.
This must be stopped.
Я хоть не понимаю многие слова в Английском, но с субтитрами смотреть просто красиво твои видео.❤🎉
Charles The Hammer.
Legend!
"Être Marteau" is also a synonym in French meaning that you are going completely crazy often in very violent way, probably because of Charles battles.
Sources didn't viewed battle tour as not important battle, tour was skrmkish and raid even after tour the umayyad still continuously expedition and raiding into francia terrorties which the battle didn't stop umayyad they also defeated charles at nabronne 737, umayyad weren't intentionally to conquering francia but rather than raiding and marching into terroties to plunder cities for spolies and golds, abd rahman and his army was focusing for loots with no stragic goal and planning for battles but countine raiding for loots till as soon as they reach tour they coincidencely confront charles and engaging with franks army depsite the umayyad did a good charging attack on them and managed to push franks and advancing them they put charles under pressure and bad position had stuck in defensive and ressist them, the umayyad weren't fighting in faith but for the seek of loots, when charles send forces under odo to attack their camp they distract umayyad army and result in splitting army lines and causes umayyad army to be diviving and broke out ranks ended up half their army return their camp to protecting their spolies which was of their reasons defeated in tour
@@ommsterlitz1805 ça veut surtout dire qu'il martel la tete des gens qui disent de la merde.
@@ghostd69long text buddy cry harder 😂 you got buttfked here go back to your desert bye bye
@@ghostd69 They were invading France lol you can look it up they also invaded acquatin and also the umayyed emperor did order his army to attack France
Wonderful and enjoyable presentation of our all-to-human history.
Omg new banger history content !!!!!1!!!🎉
I'm extremely interested in the Kingdom of Septamania and its reconquest, any chance of you covering this in future?
Septimania is not a kingdom, its the old latin name for the region southeast france nowadays knows as provence.
@@karwaktorink not Provence but a part of Languedoc
@@Pocuslol indeed my bad
Septimania do not last for long. It was a descendant of the Marquisate of Gothia and will evolve later in a land split between France and Aragon influences. Untill it became totally French as the Languedoc (capital Toulouse) after the Albigensian crusade in 1229. It still exist today as part of modern Occitania region (6 M inhabitants).
A lot of bravery for the men on both sides, may they all rest in peace.
God Bless you Charles Martel and my French ancestors! ✝️
If the opposite had happened now, you would say Alhamdullah for Islam
😂😂😂 he won’t save you from hellfire
@@COCKTALIIWhat’s your point.
@@COCKTALII insane copium. Stay in your sandy deserts
@@daviroza4700 of course, our faith in the Lord Jesus will. Can you say the same ? No you can't.
One of the brightest moments in human history, when Ismal was stopped in its tracks.
Add Jan Sobieski and Dmitri Donskoi. Saved the course of European history. Also many thanks to Vlad Tepes, Byzantines and Hungarians at various times.
Canaanites don't come from Shem.
I have read on the battle of tours and the video shown here is an excellent representation of the battle.
so your saying i can use this as a source alright ill take your word
This is what happens when the enemy knows the terrain better than you do
The Franks then became allies of the Abbasids who toppled the Umayyad Caliphate and remained hostile to their successors in Iberia
any sources that the abbassids allied with the franks? as far as I know, the abbassids, persians and romans considered the Franks and all non-roman Europeans as backward and uncivilized barbarians, not worthy of real diplomatic contact
@@akiogood4712 just watch the battle of roncevaux by this very channel
Then prince umayyad Abd rahman i known as Saqr Quraish defeated both abbasid and king frankish charlmange in lberia
@@ghostd69 This isn’t true. Charlemagne never lost a battle except for Ronceveux Pass ambush. And that ambush was set by the Basque people.
@@terro3842
Charles was defeated at nabronne 737, charlmange managed to expanded and conquered the major of erouope region but couldn't take over lberia he was failed on his campaign and basque people was under umayyad battle was also involed by Sulayman al-Arabi who was served under umayyad
An excellent video.
Thank you
The Muslim cavalry met Christian bravery ... and lost big time. Amazing job again - love this channel.
Where was that before they captured the entire Iberian peninsula?
@@The-Last-Caliphate It was after. Then following ALL the Muslims were defeated again and again as they ran cowardly from battle until Spain was retaken. Similarly, Muslims ran and ran from the 67 war with Israel where the Jews were outnumbered significantly but they had heart while the Muslims armies did not. Another example was when the Caliphate was finally crushed and there was no more islamic empire at the end of WW1, you found it was the Muslims fighting Muslims so there is no caliphate anymore. Nice username. There is no caliphate anymore.
@lleyTheSnakeHunter I am not disputing the fact that Muslims get defeated in battle. I was trying to show you if you haven't already noticed a pattern here. When non-Muslims capture our lands, it doesn't take us more than a century to reclaim them and come back even stronger than before and we go Khalid Ibn Al-Walid mode again. But when we conquer a land of non-Muslims, it takes them decades to do a come back if at all. examples: We remained in Al-Andalus 700 years. We remained in Constantinople for 571 years so far. We had Jerusalem for 332 years before the Fatimid empire took it from us (Shia are disbelievers for us). We had Jerusalem again for 730 years after kicking out the crusaders. Now, how long have the disbelievers been in Muslim lands for? Crusaders in Jerusalem 88 years. Mongols 55 years and we sent them back home as Muslims (funny they chose Islam over Christianity even though they were teaming up with them and marrying from them) Zionists 76 years (and there's already a strong military resistance going full scale against them). Liberal colonialism? maximum 132 years in Algeria by France. This is the bigger picture of history. And the reason is we don''t ppiss off the locals. We don't mass genocide them like Israel, France, USA, Crusaders, Mongols and Shia. You wanna stay in a land, control your weapons. That's the only way. Genocide is like a boomerang.
By the way, you are Christian, you can't flex Jewish wins.
@@MarkPelleyTheSnakeHunter
About the Caliphate. the Caliphate is already here. Towards the end of the Ottoman Caliphate, the Ottomans were weak so they had to collapse. The west ceased the opportunity to get to Palestine and they were successful but they brought all this science fiction tech to Palestine risking it being taken by Palestinians which can enable them to bring an even stronger Caliphate in Palestine. Now, it's just a matter of time until Palestinian soldiers are married to Israeli tech and then what? traitor Egypt, Jordan, KSA go down. Shia Lebanon, Syria nd Iraq go down. Iran ends up between two Jihadi powers: Al-Quds and Kabul. which means Iran goes down as well. Tadaaaa! Caliphate🎉. And you know what's interesting? some of these events are described in Islamic eschatology: It is mentioned that 7 Arab princes will fall at once and the Caliphate will one day be based in Al-Quds. It makes perfect sense now if Israel collapses which it definitely will. It will spark a lot of jokes about how the west basically just strengthened the Caliphate (from divided Ottomans to Unite Palestinians) just like they strengthened Taliban.
Yes, the same brave Christians who would sack the city of Constantinople.
A very detailed presentation, well done.
The first modern historian to suggest that this battle saved Christianity and Western Civilization was Edward Gibbon. And it's true as well, although some modern historians dispute this. Even Will Durant said that only the victory at Tours kept the Bible being replaced by the Koran.
Well no
Because Muslims didnt destroy christianity
Look at the Coptic Christians in Jereusalam and Egypt
Theyve been there over a millenia
You do not know anything about the history of Islam and Muslims There are millions of Christians inside the Arab and Islamic world.. and there is no one who kills them, tortures them, erases or prevents the reading of the Bible.. You are wrong and do not know anything about Muslims.
@@ryojs4286they’ve been there under persecution. True the first year of muslim conquest was benevolent, but as the Muslim population grow not by conversion but by Islam’s birth rate due to polygamy, persecution against Christians intensified. You can see this happened in Lebanon aswell, the Christian-Muslim population was balanced but in the 60s and 70s the demographics changed because of Muslim’s high birthrate and as a result Muslim persecution towards a Christians intensified. Islam is truly a religion geared for war, not peace.
@@ryojs4286 And you have not heard of the persecution of Coptic christians🤣 and recently the 20 or so martyrs .
With the Umayyads, Berber North African christians were forced to convert, Cordoba Martyrs, Maronite suppression in Lebanon ; Abbasids made the christians were special clothing, churches demolished ,christians banned from any high post , scapegoated for issues ; Fatimids destroyed basically the Christian Kaaba (Church of Holy Sepulchre) ; Ottomans: Armenian, Assyrian, Anatolian Greek Genocide , Devshirme system converted Christian boys forcibly to Islam leading to mothers even cutting of hands and feet of their children to protect them .
@@ryojs4286 Buddhists, Christians, Hindus, and other non-muslims are under constant attack in muslim-invaded countries, and their numbers diminishing. Many are only allowed to survive because of the low caste labor and extra taxes they provide, based on their dhimmi status.
Taking a breakfast and drinking my coffee in the morning while watching your videos is one of my favourite things.
Modern French people would call Charles Martel an Islamophobe
I don't think so, maybe online people but not the majority of French people.
as a (real) french young man i can ensure u that he's not considered like this
Thanks. very Interesting
addicted to this channel
This is the battle that saved human civilization. One of the most positively impactful battles in history.
I disagree, because at that time the Umayyad caliphate was the centre of civilisation, science and art. And Andalusia wasn’t a civilised country until Islam came and completely changed it.
@@Alsaegh96 bs. The southern spanish provinces were some of the most rich and influential of Rome, where some of the most important roman emperor born, like Trajan and Hadrian. And Andalusia is not a "country". And how could be the peak/centre of art of the moment When literally reject whole genres like sculpture and painting.
@@Alsaegh96 By "human civilization" they mean Northern European races. The Vandals, and Goths who brought Rome (+Western Europe) to the dark ages were Germanic (Vandals +Goths), Normans, Franks and Vikings were Northern Europeans.
@@Alsaegh96 Apart of your personal opinion you're relatively right because this raid/battle has been so unimportant that even Arabs historians merely mentioned it.
@@WissHH- of course, no one is denying that, just like no one can deny the fact that when the Muslims came to the Iberian peninsula they found little resistance so clearly Spain was weekend when the Muslims took control.
And Andalusia is actually a country established even before Umayyad role.
And about art… I recommend you to search about “Ziryab” he is basically why classical Spanish music is so beautiful, and don’t forget about calligraphy, and the great philosophers of Islam like “Ibn rushd”, thanks to him Greek philosophy is still alive and he is the one who brought it back to Europe after it was lost.
12:48-49: the Wilhelm scream.
The history of France is rich of epic battles which were decisive for history of Europe ; battle of Catalaunic fields against Attila the Hun , battle of Poitiers against the Muslims
Man, I love these videos from HistoryMarche. I love how the narration is very serious but the little pop-ups are little jokes and funny plays with numerous modern day meme-like comments. "Single and ready to mingle", "Aww, Hell Naww!!". Very funny.
As for the battle, what can be said. Checking the advance of invaders helped keep Europe free (as much as it could be in medieval Europe). This battle rivals the Siege at Vienna in 1683 as one of the most historic battles of Europe.
Excellent narrative. This particular battle is always of interest, for its role in deciding whether Europe would fall to Islam or not. France and Europe face the same question today, but it is a conquest without guns.
It may still come to guns, continental Europe is occupied by America, you need to send us home. You haven’t been sovereign since WW2.
@@jakemocci3953 America Opportuniste
Too bad Europe fell to Atheism, Feminism and Homosexualism
@@muhammadadeel8639 Those aren’t European values, they represent the beliefs of the ✡️ American ruling class that pushed it on them.
@@muhammadadeel8639 ahahaha afraid little slave muslim
Love your channel
thanks Charles Martel
Bro my respect from Great King Charles Martel but real heroes and saved europa Bizantyne Emperator Leo3 and Bulgarian Ruler Tervel.Defend 100k Mighty arabian army.battle Poaties kids game vs sige Constantinopol 717-718
Can you do a series on the Persian battles against the Caliphate. The Persians fought stubbornly against the Muslim
This definitely adds new context for me with the Crusades as a whole. I did not know about this campaign so far into French territory. Incredible!
Yeah, but the crusades were three centuries after this battle.
But this battle is also thought to the first instance of Europeans thinking of themselves as Europeans.
@@PeninsularArab127 I'm not saying one justifies the other. Just that there's an even deeper relationship with these waring cultures. I could easily see these battles being brought up around campfires as the Crusades began.
@@xslonk Of course it justifies it, as well as French colonialism in North Africa, they clearly invaded Europe first. I don’t want to hear any more crying about either in the modern day, they drew first blood, and couldn’t handle the heat.
@Jake Mocci
Dude, vandal from europe, rome from europe also invade africa before this moor incursion into europe
I hope you don't cry the influx of africans in europe dominating the workforce and sports in this modern times
Exactly. The much maligned Crusades were actually the belated Christian response to hundreds of years of Muslim predation on Christians. North Africa and most of the middle east used to be Christian you know until the Muslim horde converted the populace by force. No one today makes movies about the barbaric Islamic religious imperialism in the early medieval period, rather we are told to view it as the Golden Age of Islam, my ass. But the Christian response to liberate the Holy Land from the Mohameddens is seen as bad today? WHAT GARBAGE!
Today there are still Muslims who call Spain Al-Andalus and preach about retaking it.
EpicHistoryTV is still my favourite, but HistoryMarche comes immediately after 😃
What? EpicHistoryTV? Really?
BazBattles>HistoryMarche/Kings and Generals (and Wizards and Warriors) > rest
Sandroman history is up there
Thank you for the historical information. It is good to know. May be useful again.
I'm surprised that PravdaTube hasn't inserted a UN banner regarding izlamb-a-fobeeah.
Much respect to Charles and the Franks
the only real reason why why the Ummyads did follow up and take revenge is due to severe internal turmoil and revolutions in the empire, and this battle occurred when the empire was on its first steps of decline
the umayyads considered france as unknown, dark and uncivilized place. that's why the umayyad caliph withdrew the capable conqueror Tariq ibn ziyad from the battlefront and ordered him to visit him in Damascus, instead of invading france. if france had any relevance, like kufa, Damascus or Libya, the Caliphate would take conquering it more seriously instead of sending a random raid army there. the christians, due to their miserable sea of defeats against the early Muslims, exagerate the meaning of the battle of tours, in order to have a quantum of success against an early islamic Caliphate
@@akiogood4712 it is not that simple and my early answer is due to historic studies
@@akiogood4712 Bruh, France was formerly the extremely wealthy Roman province of GAUL and beyond the Pyrenees, the Umayyad’s wanted a foothold outside Iberia as a sallying point to take Western Europe. You must think they were uneducated barbarians to suggest the Umayyads thought France was this dark place.
These weren’t the Rashiduns, they were WELL AWARE of the significance of these territories and their history, why you think they started calling their money “Dinars” around this time (after the roman denarius), not to mention their constant attempts to take Constantinople?
@@FlaviusBelisarius-ck6uv again you miss the point, no more expansion for the Ummyad due to severe internal unrest, and they were very hated by their subjects both by Muslims and non-Muslims
Siege of constantinople was more important, sources viewed battle of tour as skrmkish and it was just raid for looting cities. Even after umayyad defeat in tour they continuously leading expedition into francia terroties they also manage to defeat charles in nabronne 737, umayyad had no intentionally of conquering france terrorties but rather focusing more in loots and spoils and golds, that explains during battle odo attacked their camp then suddenly umayyad army retreat and headed back to their camp to rescue their loots and spolis ended up in their defeat
abd rahman fought barvely didn't order his army to retreat camp to protecting spolis, it was his decision result half of his army retreat to camp as soon as odo attacking their camp then disasters occured among umayyad army lines which was a good opportunity for frankish to advance, before retreat camp the umayyad was fighting well and advancing frankish, charles was under pressure couldn't do anything but stick in defense, he did a good move by sending odo to attack their camp otherwise charles would be defeated
The battle of Tour and later the Battle of Vienna determined the fate of Europe.
Now they ‘invade’, by stealth as refugees.
This must be stopped.
Well presented, as per usual. Thank you.
Actually, It was the Prince of Provence who finally liberated what is now France from the Muslim raiders. He decisively defeated the Saracens at their slave base at Fraxenetum in 970. He then took the slave base and chased away the Muslim survivors, who disappeared from history. This victory was far more decisive and final. Tours was merely a defeated raid.
Still, the fact is, Arabs took Spain and southern France amd parts of switzerland in 2,5 Years. It took Europe 800 years to take it from them.
I am Arab and proud of my ancestors
@@פאדיאלקיסי 800 years to take it from them? What are you smoking? Spain was already in America 800 years after It was taken back from the Arabs.
@@פאדיאלקיסי... By 1200's the majority of Iberia was reconquered
Fantastic 😊
Although I am an Arab and a Muslim, but you deserve a like and a comment, because you are truly a person who considers the right to me yours and yours. I hope that the battles of the Prophet Muhammad will descend, the battle of the parties or the trench
Huh
Five years later, the Muslims returned and Charles Martel led his forces to a spectacular and bloody victory outside the walls of Narbonne at the Battle of the River Berre.
Charles Martel was and is a traitor, untill recently
Never forget the rivers of European blood spelled under the orders of Martel and his decedents
Sources didn't viewed battle tour as not important battle, tour was skrmkish and raid even after tour the umayyad still continuously expedition and raiding into francia terrorties which the battle didn't stop umayyad they also defeated charles at nabronne 737, umayyad weren't intentionally to conquering francia but rather than raiding and marching into terroties to plunder cities for spolies and golds, abd rahman and his army was focusing for loots with no stragic goal and planning for battles but countine raiding for loots till as soon as they reach tour they coincidencely confront charles and engaging with franks army depsite the umayyad did a good charging attack on them and managed to push franks and advancing them they put charles under pressure and bad position had stuck in defensive and ressist them, the umayyad weren't fighting in faith but for the seek of loots, when charles send forces under odo to attack their camp they distract umayyad army and result in splitting army lines and causes umayyad army to be diviving and broke out ranks ended up half their army return their camp to protecting their spolies which was of their reasons defeated in tour
The Arab presence in south western France lasted 40 years and their intentions were for permanent occupation. Tours is VERY FAR from the pyrenees and only about 150 miles from Paris. Mere raids don't occur hundreds of miles into enemy territory. And the Arabs were fighting battles all the way to Tours and it's said the river Garonne ran red with the blood of innocents. According to historian Michael Ray, editor of the Encyclopedia Britannica: "...Charles's victory is widely believed to have stopped the northward advance of Umayyad forces from the Iberian Peninsula and to have prevented the Islamization of Western Europe..." According to historian Paul K. Davis in his book "100 Decisive Battles From Ancient Times To The Present", estimated the Muslim force at 80,000 men. That's not a raiding party but full on invasion. Historian Victor Davis Hanson estimates the Muslim force at about 30,000, still far more than a raid. Historian Robert W. Martin has called Tours ""one of the most decisive battles in all of history." Historian Paul Davis has written: "had the Muslims been victorious at Tours, it is difficult to suppose what population in Europe could have organized to resist them." Victor Davis Hanson has written that : "...What is clear is that [Tours-Poitiers] marked a general continuance of the successful defense of Europe, (from the Muslims). Flush from the victory at Tours, Charles Martel went on to clear southern France from Islamic attackers for decades, unify the warring kingdoms into the foundations of the Carolingian Empire, and ensure ready and reliable troops from local estates..."
You are wrong about Narbonne. Charles wasn't defeated but his siege could not breach the walls, whereas he had liberated Arab occupied cities such as Nimes, Beziers, and Arles (covering a wide area of southern France) and absolutely destroyed the large Arab army outside the walls of Narbonne when he pushed them into a swamp where their horses were of no use. Here's what wikipedia says about the second great victory of Charles Martel five years after the battle of Tours: "The (Arab) army attempting to relieve Narbonne met Charles in open battle at the Battle of the River Berre and was destroyed." The Franks eventually freed Narbonne in 759.
@@henryquenin6580
I have explained you about the suitation the arab had no intention of conquering francia they wanted to raid region to plundering cities for loots then left it to pass another city without influence theur stablizing its sounds like more than party raid, raids can be occured in far miles distance than you expected, arabs fighting during raid in battles when they won battle of river gannone they didn't bother chase defeated army and their leader duke they went another way to countine their raidings for spolies, some of modern historians wanted make battle like it was more than raid so their claims are baised but rather giving their bais opnion trying to denied the historical facts this wont works, robert claimed its one of the most decisive battle in history he coping without no sense there hunderds of battle were more important and descivie than tour that changed history unlike tour didn't inflect major defeat to arab neither preventing arabs from advancing into francia as their raid was continuously into terroties even after tour, siege consantinople 717 was the most major defeat to arabs and most sources even islamic viewed siege 717 as most important battle
its funny how those historians wanted to bais in their opnion trying to amplifying battle in their delusion, the numbers are quite exaggerate for reason cuz the army in lberia dont had that sizeable of army numbers the totoally army were 30k lberia they cant fieled those army to raid and left lberia unguarded without no army, the fact army were less than 15k and second caliph didn't support the inavsion into francia cuz caliph order to stop invasion he ordered tariq and musa to stop advancing into erouope, raid was done by army in andulas which they weren't well supplied
For nabronne it was well defense than those cities taken by charlie, charlie took part north of nabronne he was defeated and retreat when he heard about the incoming arab renforcement army to nabronne he left and was prepare for their arrival he preforemd superior attack and ambush umayyad army in river berre, nabronne was fell during andulas internal conflicts
Something which needs to be repeated in the UK today.
A very small group of French knights, with support from no Christian princes, in the battle of Malta held off the huge army and navy of the Turkish sultan. Had the knights lost Italy France and Spain would have been invaded and conquered.
Let it be known that Muslims struck Frankish lands first. The crusades were a response to the danger Muslim lands posed.
They were a folly because they struck into the desert of the Middle east instead of into Iberia.
There were other Muslim invasions...North Africa, Persia, India and even China. At least the Chinese managed to repel the invaders. India had to endure several 100 years of Muslim slavery. Even in the 1800s Muslims pirates were kidnapping and enslaving Americans until Jefferson and Adams put and end to the Barbary pirates.
Obviously French leaders a 1000+ years later DIDN'T learn their OWN HISTORY about Muslims and Islam. Now the French people have a helluva price to pay for a very long time.
@@IbnAzizAlDin so why are u crying about Palestine sisi muzlim
@@IbnAzizAlDina perfect example as to why they need to drop their mental delusions that cause death and destruction.
17:28 Here is my sacrificial comment for the algorithm! All hail the algorithm! Also, what I like about these videos is they explain the context leading up to the battles, rather than focusing just on the battles themselves.
I love this story.
I have always loved this story.
Every new telling.
This battle in particular, or Andalusia in general, should be taught in schools. This battle literally changed history forever, but unfortunately it was for the worse (as a Muslim I do not want offensive comments as usual)
I mean, being a Muslim is like calling yourself a Nazi. You really should be ashamed of your hateful, supremacist and murderous beliefs.
"We are not TERR_R_st!!!"
"I have been made victorious with t*rr*r "
Chapter 57 The Book Of Jihad
Book Sahih Bukhari
Hadith No 2977
Baab Jihad Ka Bayan
Me: Sounds like T_RR_R_st
truly? Is there a man in history who had another group fighting him for 20 years, declared war, and imposed an economic and social siege on him, and then when he defeated them, he forgave them?
You will not find anyone other than the Prophet Muhammad.
In your military rules: "Kill anything that moves."
In Islamic law: “Do not kill a child, a woman, an old person, do not cut down a tree without need, or a man who cannot fight.”
Is there even any comparison? Then this hadith, I am sure that you just copied it without even reading it. I have the book in the original language next to me and you do not even know what you are reading.
Then I have to remind you, what did you do to the Native Americans? What did you do after the fall of Al-Andalus, the ruler of the Inquisition? Who fought the two world wars? Who invaded Africa and stole their wealth?
You will not find in Islamic history a person who celebrates the country he entered or brightens it and then just leaves, as you did with Africa and India.@@dhimmi1994
For the worse? Europe is thriving. It would be a shithole under Islam.
It was for the worse that the child r*pists had to wait a while before polluting Europe? Aw what a shame.
How did the infantry hold against cavalry formations? I heard it was because the infantry was the infantry was hiding in a forest that prevented the full force of the cavalry from bearing down on them, but this makes it seem otherwise.
i heard that they were defending on a hill which then blunted the cavalry charge
@@βασιλεύς-ζ4λthats exactly what i heard too
@@βασιλεύς-ζ4λ
yes with the hints of Odo about the Muslims , Charles had chosen a battle field where the cavalry is less effective, and they were using shield wall tactic, and with heavy warriors it was effective.
Very informative thanks
This video reminds us all, there was a time when Europe defended itself from invasion. Today, the weak leaders and diseased minds invite them into our lands.
We need some European Heroes again.
Now more than ever.
Look, idiot, there is a difference between the occupier and the conquest. Second, there are a large number of Christians and other religions in the lands of Muslims.
@@عسافالعتيبي-ض2م Muslims belong to the Arab lands, Levant is rightfully ours, north Africa is rightfully ours, Anatolia is rightfully ours, should I continue?
Excellent recounting of this fascinating period - made all the better by your use of a human narrator instead of a simulated one (which seems suddenly and unfortunately to be the thing to do now).