View Single Post
  #24  
Old 09-24-2017, 11:15 AM
Ramira Ramira is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 3,319
Quote:
Originally Posted by Merneith View Post
Bolding mine.

Well, in that case the "fairy tale" is on the Muslim side.
Your introduction of prejudiced knee jerking as a strawman on any scholarship is noted.

However a muslim 'side' or scholarship has not one thing to do with this or even my comment, purely based on the modern european and very Western historians.

The same page:
Quote:
Objecting to the significance of Tours as a world-altering event[edit]
Other historians disagree with this assessment. Alessandro Barbero writes, "Today, historians tend to play down the significance of the battle of Poitiers, pointing out that the purpose of the Muslim force defeated by Charles Martel was not to conquer the Frankish kingdom, but simply to pillage the wealthy monastery of St-Martin of Tours".[71] Similarly, Tomaž Mastnak writes:

Modern historians have constructed a myth presenting this victory as having saved Christian Europe from the Muslims. Edward Gibbon, for example, called Charles Martel the savior of Christendom and the battle near Poitiers an encounter that changed the history of the world. ... This myth has survived well into our own times. ... Contemporaries of the battle, however, did not overstate its significance. The continuators of Fredegar's chronicle, who probably wrote in the mid-eighth century, pictured the battle as just one of many military encounters between Christians and Saracens – moreover, as only one in a series of wars fought by Frankish princes for booty and territory. ... One of Fredegar's continuators presented the battle of Poitiers as what it really was: an episode in the struggle between Christian princes as the Carolingians strove to bring Aquitaine under their rule.[72]

The historian Philip Khuri Hitti believes that "In reality nothing was decided on the battlefield of Tours. The Moslem wave, already a thousand miles from its starting point in Gibraltar – to say nothing about its base in al-Qayrawan – had already spent itself and reached a natural limit."[73]

The view that the battle has no great significance is perhaps best summarized by Franco Cardini[it] says in Europe and Islam: "Although prudence needs to be exercised in minimizing or 'demythologizing' the significance of the event, it is no longer thought by anyone to have been crucial. The 'myth' of that particular military engagement survives today as a media cliché, than which nothing is harder to eradicate. It is well known how the propaganda put about by the Franks and the papacy glorified the victory that took place on the road between Tours and Poitiers ..."[74]
The broad consensus of the European historians is not in the support the mythology of a great invasion stoppage inflating the significance of the raiding party.

If anyone should have a credit for no great Ummayad expansion reprise in the 800s, it is the Basque highlanders saying fuck you to both the Franks and the Muslims and fighting of any real control by both (the same ones who massacred Rolland but the later medieval Francphile propaganda gave the credit in chanson to muslims). But it does not as easily fit into the black and white narratives.

The rest of the prejudiced tinged commentary insterting enormous strawmen of comments not at all made is not of any interest.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Clothahump View Post
Is the West kidding itself about the good intentions of Islam?


In order to answer that, one must first ask this question: what good intentions? We're talking about a religion that has a fundamental core that says convert everyone to Islam and kill anyone who doesn't. It's really hard to say that a religion like that has any kind of good intentions, not to mention ludicrous.
Oh wonderful more of the gross prejudice and ignorant comment. Of course since all replies are masqued to him, it is not purpose a reply in factual correction.

Last edited by Ramira; 09-24-2017 at 11:17 AM.