Martel losing the Battle of Tours

This may have been a topic already discussed by others on the forum but I would like to discuss it for a book I am writing on it.
What if the Battle of Tours was lost by Charles Martel and won by Abdul Rahman Al Ghafiqi?
In my book I already discussed how Ghafiqi continued his conquest until he had controlled all parts of the Frankish Empire and the Duchy of Aquitaine. Also how the Frankish peasants were allowed to go into exile, convert or be killed. This is all of what I have written. If anyone on the forums has any contribution about what Ghafqi's or any figure's actions during this time period would be please say so or if you have anything that might help me write the book( info on 8th century muslim philosophy, the Church at the time, the Byzantine Empire at the time ) please contribute to this thread.

I don't want this to turn into a discussion on how important of a battle this was or that the two sieges of Constantinople in 717 and 720 were more important. In the context of this novel the Battle of Tours was one of THE MOST important battles for Christianity and that is how i am treating it.
Thanks.
 

HJ Tulp

Donor
AFAIK the Battle of Tours defeated nothing more then a Muslim raiding party.


EDIT: sorry didn't read the last lines.
 
I find it highly unlikely that the Muslims would give a Exile/Convert/Die option to the peasants in the Frankish lands. More likely, they will copy their usual policiy towards their Christian subjects, which was pay the Jizya, and get on with their lives.

A Muslim victory would also severly damage Christianity's political power. Most places to the east of France were Pagan (with the exeption of Italy and Byzantium, and Paganism would have an easier time without the Frankish campaigns against them, though there is a possibility of Muslim campaigns against them instead.

As for Islamic philosophy, it could be quite different. It was only early days for Islamic thought, and although Sufism and Shiism had already started to develop, it was going to be a while until they evolved into their modern day forms, and with a POD here, there is a lot of room for changing many things about Isalm.
 
I have several questions for you:

1.Why wouldn't they use that policy?

2. Would the Muslims try to improve the lifestyles of the Franks (i.e. make them literate)?

3.Do you think the Umayyad Caliphate would still collapse in 750?

4.Would Pope George III do anything about the Muslims taking over the Franks?

5.Would King Leo III do anything about it?
 
As said, Battle of Tours was not even a great battle.

Why?
1)Muslims were raiding Aquitaine, not Francia. At this time Aquitaine was de facto independent from Francia and Charles of Heristal had little interest in protecting Odon of Gascony. Muslims were raiding the healthiest monasteries and lands of Aquitaine to avange both the Battle of Toulouse (that was actually the real battle that decided of the future of Western Europe, as the Muslims were came for conquering, with siege machines, at the contrary of Tours) and the alliance between Odon and Munusa, a berber rebel.

2)Charles agreed to help Odon in exchange of the loss of the autonomy (that he didn't had finally) and to protect the St-Martin monastery. He didn't care about the pillaging of Aquitaine, and he even let the Muslims fleed the battlefield in good order with the booty and not even try to attack their backside.

We see that nor the Muslims, nor the Franks considered this battle as important or worth of their interest. They're even many arabs scholars that doesn't even mention this battle, or confuse it with the one of Toulouse.

It's not as a defeat wouldn't change many things in Western Europe, but if a land is conquered at term, in a later expedition, it would be likely Aquitaine, not Francia. The problem of conquering Aquitaine is that the population would be more important than many hispanic provinces (the peninsula had only 3.5 Million people of inhabitants at this time). The wali of Ârbuna (Narbona) was inhabited by some but few muslims being demographically, economically and politically (except Arbûna) dominated by the gothic nobility as the conquest of Pepin prooved.

The Arabo-Berbers couldn't manage to efficiently rule the Aquitaine and critically the Gascony (inhabited by people who served as mounted jabberwockies before the saracens), and the local nobility would have likely the commands. As the Great Berber Revolt wouldn't likely butterflied by the defeat, in 740, Aquitaine would likely freed itself (as Asturias), more weak against Frankish amitions tough and would likely too being fractured between Gascony, Aquitaine, maybe Auvergne if no Odonid survives or being enough powerful to claim his power.

On the other hand, Charles wouldbe likely discredited for his defeat, and a new rebellion would likely rises (nothing unusual tough, there's 8 revolts during the reigns of Charles and Pepin) with Hugonids, Frisians and Bavarians probably allied. Neustrians and loyals Austrasians would likely win against them though.

For having a defeat, it's quite hard.
The strenght of Pepin came from 1)His heavy infantry that stand against Berber cavalry. 2)His knowledge of terrain 3)The use of romans roads to came faster. 4)Odon and Gascon cavalry attacking the Muslims 5)The unwill of berber to fight for Arabs if something turn wrong.

Oh, for the eventual conversions in Aquitaine, forget them. It worked on Spain because of an harsh and religious-based slavery and because of a long muslim rule, but it wouldn't be working there. Critically because, on a quite wealthy territory, the muslims lords have interest to keep the Christians as Dhimmi, because it means more taxes.

For the paganism, the problem isn't it's presence in Jura and Alps mountains, it's critically the maintain of pagan rites in christianity. This wouldn't be resolved before Pepin/Carloman reforms (that would greatly moralize church) and Charlemagne. The main religious problem would be the dismembrement of the religious clientele loyal to Charles, thanks to Boniface, in a faction still loyal, one much more doubtful (as Charles promised clerks to give them the richess of aquitain monasteries) and one following eventual rebels.
 
For the one, read the post above

2. Would the Muslims try to improve the lifestyles of the Franks (i.e. make them literate)?
The conquerors were mainly berbers and illetrate, and the arabs leaders...well. One of them joined Abd al Rahman side in 740's because others were making fun of his illetracy, and it wasn't sole in this case.

3.Do you think the Umayyad Caliphate would still collapse in 750?
Al-Andalus was de facto independent since 711...as the Ifryqia by the way. The Caliphes have more problems in Caucasus and Iraq to bother about autonomous wali in the west. Besides the reasons of Ummayad's fall were eastern ones.
By the way, the Berber Revolt would likely occurs too.

4.Would Pope George III do anything about the Muslims taking over the Franks?
The Pope have no real religious and no political power before Charlemagne, and viewed as Primus inter Pares (traduction : Byzzies' puppet). Furthermore, as the Lombards were lurking about the Exarchate, and the Franks busy to fight themselves, if Pepin and Carloman didn't had the power to help him, it would became just a lombard bishop, with a funny title.

For the 5, Byzzies are being attacked by Arabs and Constantinople was besiged. He had no time, no interest to see what's happening in western Europe where is have no priorities, no interests, nothing worth of mention.
 
I have several questions for you:

1.Why wouldn't they use that policy?

2. Would the Muslims try to improve the lifestyles of the Franks (i.e. make them literate)?

3.Do you think the Umayyad Caliphate would still collapse in 750?

4.Would Pope George III do anything about the Muslims taking over the Franks?

5.Would King Leo III do anything about it?
1. They wouldn't use the policy because it is much better for the government if they have tax-payers around then to have a semi-deserted wasteland. They used no such policy in nearly every other place they invaded.

2. Probably not intentionally, but the Muslims will probably not make any great efforts to preserve the feudal system, which may speed up urbanisation and that would result in a higher literacy rate.

3. Most probably, new conquests far away from the centres of Muslim power would not change the causes of dissent against the Ummayads, which was mostly held by Shia's.

4. Outside of condemnation of the Muslims, there is little he can do. Prehaps he could encorage the Lombardians to fight against the Muslims, but they will probably be too scared to do that.

5. Gaul is too far for Leo and theres a much larger Arab threat to him in the south, so it is unlikely that he will do anything about the destruction of yet another Barbarian kingdom.
 
2. Probably not intentionally, but the Muslims will probably not make any great efforts to preserve the feudal system, which may speed up urbanisation and that would result in a higher literacy rate.

4. Outside of condemnation of the Muslims, there is little he can do. Prehaps he could encorage the Lombardians to fight against the Muslims, but they will probably be too scared to do that.

Just for some note about your answers.

2.The pre-feudal western system, based on the clientele much than territory, is really close to the one used by Arabo-Berbers, and in Spain, and Septimania (and in Aquitaine before 717) there was place for inter-racial marriages and alliances, think of the Banu Qasi by exemple, that allied with Vascons, Muslims, etc. As in muslim world, a pre-feudal noble is considered as one when he's chosen by the authority (caliphe/king, wali/duke) AND approoved by his clientele ("election" in pre-feudality, no civil war in muslim world, and thaat's pratically the same thing). For the greater urbanisation, definitly not. The Arabo-Berers aren't just enough to settle the region and increasing the towns population. And as in Spain, the christian population would conserve his uses until 1 century at best.

4.In fact, it's rather good news for Lombies, well their Aquitain traditional ally is crushed, but Franks, their traditional foes, are likely in civil war. EVen with the probable victory of the Pepinids, it gaves them times and forces to force the provencals to recognize their authority. At this time, the patrice Abbon is still governing Provence as a semi-independent entity, it's maybe something to play for the pope as "how, look! A little and quite rich place, and nobody guards it! Quick, take it! (And it would keeps you far from me, being busy to conquer other people)".
 
so what your saying is what i'm trying to do won't work?
Well, writing a TL is also seeing how is ideas are working on a quite real scale. It doesn't mean that you have to forgot the idea, but you can adapt it to others schemes. I advise you to study a bit the subject and to try to see how the events would go.
 
In my book Ghafiqi gets a message from a scout he sent to the Frankish empire that the Franks knew he was coming and are preparing an army just as big as his. Because he knew this he managed to get more reinforcements to organize into his army which led to a change in his strategy at the battle which helped him win in less time.
 
In my book Ghafiqi gets a message from a scout he sent to the Frankish empire that the Franks knew he was coming and are preparing an army just as big as his. Because he knew this he managed to get more reinforcements to organize into his army which led to a change in his strategy at the battle which helped him win in less time.

1)The reinforcments
Al-Ghafiqi couldn't have reinforcment, being simply too far from Al-Andalus. He had to use what he have right now, and nothing else. So a big "no" here, i'm afraid.

2)The message from the scout.
Well, indeed a scout could have warned the Muslims that the Franks were using romans roads and coming faster than expected.

3)Reorganizing the army.
Mmm...Yes and no. Yes because it allows Al-Ghafiqi to indeed try to adopt a new tactic (by exemple, not attacking the frankish infantry on direct charges and seeing if the Aquitains are not trying to attack his back).
But it's a raid here, and the muslim army is slowed by the booty. So Al-Ghafiqi is forced to put it on his back, and therefore to put here a part of his best forces. So he can change his tactic, and try to have the best terrain (he didn't had the knowledge of its, so it's going to be matter of chance and experience), but he couldn't change his strategy and the placement of his army.

Is a Muslim victory is possible?
Yes. By exemple, if a frankish scout reports that muslims have changing their mind about something etc, making the battle slightly change. But it would be likely a stalemate, a victory without any real winner, having nevertheless the same effects than a victory, as long the Muslims keeps the loot : eventual later raids in Aquitaine could reuse the ambitions of 717 and try to conquer Aquitaine, without great frankish threat. (I admit that a real Muslim victory would make it far more realisable)
 
But I have no clue how else they would have had a large enough victory to kill Martel and destroy the army
 
But I have no clue how else they would have had a large enough victory to kill Martel and destroy the army

Some advices (and things i used to wrote my own timeline, or correcting it, or re-correcting it, or re-re...etc.)
1)Study the subject. The better books and reviews are the universitarian's ones, not the great and definitive thesis, but the student's manual (you know, as "History of Anglo-Saxon England") on a precise subject. As i presume you're russian, i can't council you a book, but you surely find one by yourself. There's the better to understand a period because you have societal, economical resumes of the era, and of course facts.

2)For a military part, study the strategy and the equipment of the era. By exemple here's, the goal of an army is to plunder and force the ennemy to recognize youre claims are rights (at the contrary of more recents goals as crush ennemies' army, destroy industrial potential, etc.)

3)Imagination. You have an general but vague idea of what you want to see. Try to see what thing could lead to that. If an idea doesn't work, except in the real desesperate situations (and the Battle of Tours isn't), you'll always find another.
By exemple here, kill Charles Martel since the beggining of the battle. You maybe doesn't need to describe all the battle precisely.

4)Realism. Yes it's the opposite of 3. Just keep in mind that there are physical and historical limits to what you can do. Even the biggest and better conquerors need supplies, need that their troops rest, etc.

4a)Self-Realism. You say you want to do a book? Pardon me, but have you wrote novels, or short stories (published or not, that's doesn't matter). Furthermore, for alternate history's subjects, have you wrote timelines? Without any artistic goal, just for the sake of it?
If not, try to be more prudent on your ambitions, and begin to do a Timeline, as you'll find many exemples here.
And if you make a good job, well, there's people here that published they're own stories (cf. Non-Political chat).
 
Top