Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Could The Battle of Tours Changed Europe's Religion? Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Had the Islamic forces in Tours won in 732 and altered the course of history with a success in conquering Frankish territories, do you think that this would have culminated to the extent that Europe would have predominantly adopted Islam?

    It's an interesting and often underrated battle, and I don't think the Caliphate would have been able to extend much further than central France for any extended period of time due to a lack of mobile troops available, but it is an interesting concept that could potentially have changed Europe's dominant religion if an Arab conquest had been successful with consistency.

    What do you think?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I agree that it would have been difficult for the Arabs to conquer large swathes of Europe due to supply issues. Maybe a situation like the Danelaw would have developed, with a large Arab in presence in the south and west of France? I doubt that, apart from in those areas which were conquered by the Arabs, Islam would have been widely adopted.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fezzick123)
    I agree that it would have been difficult for the Arabs to conquer large swathes of Europe due to supply issues. Maybe a situation like the Danelaw would have developed, with a large Arab in presence in the south and west of France? I doubt that, apart from in those areas which were conquered by the Arabs, Islam would have been widely adopted.
    I'm not too sure about their naval capabilities but with a control over the entrance into the Mediterranean and with a projectional point from the whole of Northern Africa and Eastern Spain, they could have possibly supplied more troops in a longer advancement plan.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kiss)
    I'm not too sure about their naval capabilities but with a control over the entrance into the Mediterranean and with a projectional point from the whole of Northern Africa and Eastern Spain, they could have possibly supplied more troops in a longer advancement plan.
    I'm not sure how long the Europeans would have sat back and let the Arabs conquer them. The Battle of Tours shows that Arabs could be beaten. Even if we are ignoring the battle, it does suggest that if the Arabs went up against the whole of Europe, they'd probably lose.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fezzick123)
    I'm not sure how long the Europeans would have sat back and let the Arabs conquer them. The Battle of Tours shows that Arabs could be beaten. Even if we are ignoring the battle, it does suggest that if the Arabs went up against the whole of Europe, they'd probably lose.
    I'm not disagreeing, especially with the proximity to the Papal States and the threat of a direct invasion against holy Catholic land, but in a hypothetical scenario I think they could have held on to Southern and Eastern France long enough to bring more troops to launch a more cohesive invasion on central Europe.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kiss)
    I'm not disagreeing, especially with the proximity to the Papal States and the threat of a direct invasion against holy Catholic land, but in a hypothetical scenario I think they could have held on to Southern and Eastern France long enough to bring more troops to launch a more cohesive invasion on central Europe.
    I'm not sure however that there would have been any more troops coming. The Umayyad Caliphate was never particularly interested in the region - even the conquest of Spain was done mainly be Berber converts. And the Berbers were never particularly numerous - they were able to handle Spain, but I don't know if they would have had the numbers to rule much of France as well.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    I don't think so, Based purely on the etic of history doing history.

    The Umayyad's were generally disliked by many tribes, both the Sunni and Shiites thought of them as the worse Fitna. The Abbasids just fermented the situation, and then in my opinion it's largest detractor is it's cultural non-disambiguation with politics, the fact you have many Ummayad succesors declaring once all hell breaks loose confirms this; the Cordoban Caliphate etc

    Also they transition of Caliph from a religious figure to that of dynastic in my view, only served to loosen their stranglehold. And lest we not forget, the Romans were still around and the Ummayads were always wary of them, not until really the death of the Komnenons line were the Romans pacified and were a very real threat to re-claiming it's former possessions.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.