| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Leslie Cheswyck
Joined: 31 May 2003
Location: University of Western Chile
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
 Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 8:27 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| There is some controversy about whether it was an army of conquest or just a raiding party. The link even says there were 60,000 to 400,000. No one knows for sure. The victory worked for propaganda purposes if nothing else. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rapier
Joined: 16 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 8:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| but the Battle of Tours is considered the high water mark of the Moslem invasion of Western Europe. |
I think thats a hasty conclusion. When muslims outnumber the French within 30 years (at current rates) then we can re-assess. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 10:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| There is some controversy about whether it was an army of conquest or just a raiding party. The link even says there were 60,000 to 400,000. No one knows for sure. The victory worked for propaganda purposes if nothing else. |
my professor in my middle ages history class a few years ago felt it was one of the most overhyped battles of all time. It is hardly mentioned in muslim history chronicles. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leslie Cheswyck
Joined: 31 May 2003
Location: University of Western Chile
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2005 12:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| There is some controversy about whether it was an army of conquest or just a raiding party. The link even says there were 60,000 to 400,000. No one knows for sure. The victory worked for propaganda purposes if nothing else. |
The conquest of Spain some twenty years earlier began also as an equally tentative enterprise. And you know what happened then. Even though I am inclined to agree that it may have been a "mere" raiding party, the Franks were probably, by then, familiar with the Muslim pattern of conquest.
I find the numbers a little fuzzy, too. I discount the higher number outright. Even 60,000 sounds large, but not unreal. Nevertheless, the size of the forces involved does not make a battle decisive, but its effects (as far as we can tell) on subsequent events. That is why Midway is considered far more decisive than Leyte Gulf.
So, I'll grant you it was a raiding party. But the sting Martel gave the Muslims discouraged them from trying again (for some time). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leslie Cheswyck
Joined: 31 May 2003
Location: University of Western Chile
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2005 12:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
my professor in my middle ages history class a few years ago felt it was one of the most overhyped battles of all time. It is hardly mentioned in muslim history chronicles. |
My ancient history prof said the same about Marathon. The Persians saw it merely as a punitive expedition gone bad, and not worth redoubling the effort. But what does "hardly mentioned" mean? It's either mentioned or it isn't. Anyway, people rarely like to mention their defeats. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2005 1:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Leslie Cheswyck wrote: |
| The Persians saw it merely as a punitive expedition gone bad, and not worth redoubling the effort. |
Is that true? My understanding was that the Persian Emperor Darius had an advisor remind him of the Greeks every evening before dinner for the rest of his life. And Xerxes did redouble the effort. Actually, he more than doubled the troops according to Herodotus' (surely inflated) count of 1 million soldiers versus the original 30k or so who landed at Marathon. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leslie Cheswyck
Joined: 31 May 2003
Location: University of Western Chile
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2005 1:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Leslie Cheswyck wrote: |
| The Persians saw it merely as a punitive expedition gone bad, and not worth redoubling the effort. |
Is that true? My understanding was that the Persian Emperor Darius had an advisor remind him of the Greeks every evening before dinner for the rest of his life. And Xerxes did redouble the effort. Actually, he more than doubled the troops according to Herodotus' (surely inflated) count of 1 million soldiers versus the original 30k or so who landed at Marathon. |
Well, that's what Lidell Hart maintains. And I'll take his word on that if you will. What I think Hart meant was that the Persians did not immediately redouble their efforts. And, Darius' advisor notwithstanding, Darius did not himself try again.
Edit: http://education.yahoo.com/reference/encyclopedia/entry/PersWars
| Quote: |
| The Persians did not continue the war, but Darius at once began preparations for a third expedition so powerful that the overwhelming of Greece would be certain. He died (486) before his preparations were completed, but they were continued by Xerxes I, his son and successor. |
Leslie eats hat. 
Anyway, we can probably assume (yes, assume) that the Persians felt taking Athens would be tougher after losing a battle than it would have been after winning one. Still, they took a shot at it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Marathon
| Quote: |
| As soon as Datis had put to sea, the Athenians marched to Athens. They arrived in time to prevent Artaphernes from securing a landing. Seeing his opportunity lost, Artaphernes set about and returned to Asia. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2005 5:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| My understanding was that the Persian Emperor Darius had an advisor remind him of the Greeks every evening before dinner for the rest of his life. |
Herodotus said it happened, but then he is Greek and the claim flatters the Greeks. No one is certain it happened. I prefer to think it did because it makes a good story. Anyway, if the Athenians had stayed out of Persian affairs in Ionia then Marathon, Salamis and Plataea would never have happened. And Pericles wouldn't have had to rebuild classical Athens which would have been a loss for Western Civ. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2005 5:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Leslie Cheswyck wrote: |
| bucheon bum wrote: |
my professor in my middle ages history class a few years ago felt it was one of the most overhyped battles of all time. It is hardly mentioned in muslim history chronicles. |
My ancient history prof said the same about Marathon. The Persians saw it merely as a punitive expedition gone bad, and not worth redoubling the effort. But what does "hardly mentioned" mean? It's either mentioned or it isn't. Anyway, people rarely like to mention their defeats. |
hardly mentioned=a couple/few sources mention the battle, and little is written about it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leslie Cheswyck
Joined: 31 May 2003
Location: University of Western Chile
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2005 7:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| Leslie Cheswyck wrote: |
| bucheon bum wrote: |
my professor in my middle ages history class a few years ago felt it was one of the most overhyped battles of all time. It is hardly mentioned in muslim history chronicles. |
My ancient history prof said the same about Marathon. The Persians saw it merely as a punitive expedition gone bad, and not worth redoubling the effort. But what does "hardly mentioned" mean? It's either mentioned or it isn't. Anyway, people rarely like to mention their defeats. |
hardly mentioned=a couple/few sources mention the battle, and little is written about it. |
"Hardly mentioned". That's like saying "a little bit pregnant".
Hardly mentioned because they "were much more interested in the Arab defeat at Constantinople in 718. Many contemporary historians argue that had the Arabs actually wished to conquer Europe they could easily have done so. However, these historians argue that the fact is they were not interested, because Northern Europe at that time was considered to be (and was) a socially, culturally and economically backward area with little to interest any invaders. But this is disputed by the records of the Islamic raids into India and other non-Muslim states for loot and converts. Given the great wealth in Christian shrines such as the one at Tours, Islamic expansion into that area would have been likely had it not been sharply defeated in 732 by Martel. Further evidence of the importance of this battle lies in Islamic expansion into all other regions of the old Roman Empire. It is not likely Gaul would have been spared save by the strength of Martel's legendary right arm and the loyalty of his veteran Frankish Army.
Moreover, given the fact that the Arabs own histories make more references to the Franks than any other people save the Byzantines, and the importance they placed on the death of Rahman and the defeat in Gaul, and the subsequent defeat and destruction of Muslim bases in what is now France, it is likely that this battle did have macrohistorical importance in stopping westward Islamic expansion. Gibbons and his generation of historians are probably more correct than the contemporary view that this battle lacked major historical impact. Had Martel fallen at Tours the long term implications for European Christianity would likely have been devastating."
http://www.worldhistory.com/wiki/B/Battle-of-Tours.htm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
