Frankish defeat by Muslims = no modern civilisation?

Status
Closed

Rodger

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
6,104
US
#84
Whats the argument. I don;t see an argument after your retraction.
There is no retraction on my part. Please quote the post where I have done so. The point that I made and that you took issue with is the fact the the Muslim forces in the early 8th century used their faith as their primary motivation for conquest and expansion.
 
Likes: Futurist

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
9,239
#85
There is no retraction on my part. Please quote the post where I have done so. The point that I made and that you took issue with is the fact the the Muslim forces in the early 8th century used their faith as their primary motivation for conquest and expansion.
No you argued that if they Muslims they must be engaged in conquest which I did not accept.

You then said I was reading too much into your post. if your remove that reduces the content to nothing at all. there was nothing else.

but you are still making the argument. The generalization that Musilms engaged in conquest. These are Muslims. Therefore they are enaged in conquest. Or is there something I'm missing.
 

Rodger

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
6,104
US
#86
Really. The determining factor is the force's faith. The any force that is Islamic in faith MUST be about conquest. I think just painting all islamic entities with the same over bearing push to conquest is hardly an accurate to approach history. It;s putting dogma and politics before examintaion of the facts.
No you argued that if they Muslims they must be engaged in conquest which I did not accept.

You then said I was reading too much into your post. if your remove that reduces the content to nothing at all. there was nothing else.

but you are still making the argument. The generalization that Musilms engaged in conquest. These are Muslims. Therefore they are enaged in conquest. Or is there something I'm missing.
Ok. I feel as if I am debating what I perceive to be circular arguments. I specifically stated, twice, Muslims in the early 8th century. Hardly a generalization. And I will post it again, in response to your first post here. Yes, for the Muslims of the early 8th century, the determining factor for their battles and conquest was the forces' faith.
 

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
9,239
#87
Ok. I feel as if I am debating what I perceive to be circular arguments. I specifically stated, twice, Muslims in the early 8th century. Hardly a generalization. And I will post it again, in response to your first post here. Yes, for the Muslims of the early 8th century, the determining factor for their battles and conquest was the forces' faith.
So there was no inter Muslim warfare at all?

That a warlike group used to plunder and conquest seeing rich lands which were militarily weak needs religion to motivate them into action?

It just boils down to Islam. The Unification of war like groups near civilizations in crisis never resulted in a sweep of conquest before in history.
 
Nov 2010
7,648
Cornwall
#88
Ok. I feel as if I am debating what I perceive to be circular arguments. I specifically stated, twice, Muslims in the early 8th century. Hardly a generalization. And I will post it again, in response to your first post here. Yes, for the Muslims of the early 8th century, the determining factor for their battles and conquest was the forces' faith.
In Iberia, at least half of the wars and battles were muslim-muslim or Christian-Christian. It was all about land. and ethnicity if anything. Christian expansion was all about taking land off the weaker neighbours, including Leon, Navarra in the case of Castilla.

For the Almoravid Empire - frustrated with the decadence, scheming, unrelaibility and wayward living of the Taifas of Iberia, they invaded and conquered, removing each muslim Taifa king. Before that many of the smaller Taifas had been conquered by the larger, most notably Sevilla.

Just as a third example - one could write for days on this - in the run up to Las Navas each Christian nation was at one point allied with the Almohad Empire against their neighbours, Leon nearly all the time. In fact they actually attacked Castillian border castles/towns during the campaign. 50 years earlier there was a better war of conquest of the Almohads againt El Rey Lobo, muslim king of Valencia and Murcia

The politics, class, clan, race origins of muslim leaders in the period was immense (partly old Gothic nobility). Christian mercenaries were often employed

I've said it before, but the whole later crusading and fundamentalist thing has clouded history for the period 700-1100/1200 forever. Many find it impossible to visualise a world without 'crusading mentality'. In any case it only had a passing relevance in Iberia
 

M.S. Islam

Ad Honorem
Jul 2012
3,282
Dhaka
#89
I specifically stated, twice, Muslims in the early 8th century. Hardly a generalization. And I will post it again, in response to your first post here. Yes, for the Muslims of the early 8th century, the determining factor for their battles and conquest was the forces' faith.
That's a gross generalization, which was clarified by at least four different posters. Why don't you go back and read them?
 
Likes: Arminius
Jan 2009
1,258
#90
Yes, for the Muslims of the early 8th century, the determining factor for their battles and conquest was the forces' faith.
Rodger, if I may...

Statement 1: "It was a Muslim army, therefore they MUST be conquering to spread the faith. There can be no other reason."
Statement 2: "Muslim faith encouraged them to conquer other lands, but they did other stuff, too."
These statements are not equal. A Muslim army can be doing something else than conquering to spread the faith, for example raiding or fighting other Muslims.

As has already been eloquently put by other posters, in particular Kirialax and johnincornwall:
a) Large-scale raids existed, both by Muslim groups and non-Muslim groups (Huns, Magyars, Vikings come to mind right off the bat).
b) Muslims did fight one another and allied with Christian kingdoms, as it suited their own political needs. Granted, most of this was later, once there were Christian kingdoms worth allying with. But see Battle of Tours - Wikipedia : "However, Charles failed in his attempt to take Narbonne at the Siege of Narbonne in 737, when the city was jointly defended by its Muslim Arab and Berber, and its Christian Visigothic citizens." (Emphasis mine.)

Even if the Muslim army had won at Tours, they would not have stayed. A defeat might have made things more difficult for the Franks, though. If you want to argue about a conquest, it would be better to focus on the second invasion:
Battle of Tours - Wikipedia
during which the Umayyad army stayed in Provence for 4 years.

I would be willing to posit that if the Franks had been beaten badly at Tours, then they might not have had the strength to push the Umayyad army out of Provence and, later, Septimania. However, with the Umayyad Caliphate collapsing in 750, I doubt that they would have been able to hold on to the South of France for much longer. Most likely the same thing would have played out as in Spain, splintering into Taifas and dealt with piecemeal.
 
Last edited:
Status
Closed

Similar History Discussions