Battle of Tours, 732 AD ⚔️ How did the Franks turn the Islamic Tide? 

hey HM great video as always but please explain/clarify....at 15:30 you say Al Rahman is killed by javelin or arrow show, and at the end in Footnote nr2 you say al Rahman consolidated his position etc etc?

Battle of Uhud next?

Siege of constantinople was more important, sources viewed battle of tour as skrmkish and it was just raid for looting cities. Even after umayyad defeat in tour they continuously leading expedition into francia terroties they also manage to defeat charles in nabronne 737, umayyad had no intentionally of conquering france terrorties but rather focusing more in loots and spoils and golds, that explains during battle odo attacked their camp then suddenly umayyad army retreat and headed back to their camp to rescue their loots and spolis ended up in their defeat ​abd rahman fought barvely didn't order his army to retreat camp to protecting spolis, it was his decision result half of his army retreat to camp as soon as odo attacking their camp then disasters occured among umayyad army lines which was a good opportunity for frankish to advance, before retreat camp the umayyad was fighting well and advancing frankish, charles was under pressure couldn't do anything but stick in defense, he did a good move by sending odo to attack their camp otherwise charles would be defeated

@@ciripa The Abd Al Rahman mentioned in this story is Abd al-Rahman ibn (son of) Abd Allah al-Ghafiqi, commander/governor of Al-andalus (Iberia while under the Muslims). The Abd al-Rahman mentioned in the footnote is Abd al-Rahman I ibn Mu’awiya, future emir of the Emirate of Cordoba. An emir is of higher rank than a commander/governor. Also look up the Wikipedia record of how he became an emir - it's amazing!

A continuation of the series would be amazing looking at islamic rule in france (maybe the continued conquest in provence after this loss, peppin defating and removing them from france, and the return of muslims rule in france in franxtium)

🤦‍♂️

Umayyad experience definitely counts. But it was more about the Franks not having enough cavalry that stopped them from doing more damage.

@@Ragnarok__ they used quality ideas

But it didn't happen like this

@@newonevery740 I was there. It definitely did

JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA : "... , it remains a fact that the Jews, either directly or through their coreligionists in Africa, encouraged the Mohammedans to conquer Spain and that they greeted them as their deliverers. After the battle of Jerez (711), in which African Jews fought bravely under Kaula al-Yahudi, and in which the last Gothic king, Rodrigo, and his nobles were slain, the conquerors Musa and Ṭariḳ were everywhere victorious. The conquered cities Cordova, Malaga, Granada, Seville, and Toledo were placed in charge of the Jewish inhabitants, who had been armed by the Arabs. The victors removed the disabilities which had oppressed the Jews so heavily, and granted them full religious liberty, requiring them to pay only the tribute of one golden dinar per capita (Adolf do Castro, "Historia de los Judios en España," pp. 33 et seq.; Rios, "Hist." i. 106 et seq.; G. van Vlooten, "Recherches sur la Domination Arabe," Amsterdam, 1894). A new era now dawned for the Jews of the Pyrenean peninsula, whose number had been considerably augmented by those who had followed the Arab conquerors, as well as by later immigrants from Africa. Hardly a decade after the conquest, however, many Jews left their new home in order to follow a man named Serenus (Zanora, Zonaria) who had appeared in Syria and had proclaimed himself the Messiah (721); the governor, Anbasa (Ambisa), who was collecting enormous sums for the fiscus, confiscated the property of the emigrating Jews for this purpose. Under the Ommiad 'Abd al-Raḥman I., whose greatness is said to have been foretold by a learned Jew who became his adviser, a flourishing kingdom was established, of which Cordova was the center. During 'Abd al-Raḥman's reign the Jews devoted themselves to the service of the califate, to the study of the sciences, and to commerce and industry, especially to trading in silk and slaves, in this way promoting the prosperity of the country. Southern Spain became an asylum for the oppressed Jews of other parts. Bodo-Eleazar, a convert to Judaism, went to Cordova, where he is said to have endeavored to win proselytes for Judaism from among the Spanish Christians; but that the mass of the Spanish Jews of the period in question hated the Christians and aimed at making proselytes is not correct. Under 'Abd al-Rahman I. and Al-Ḥakim. The reigns of 'Abd al-Raḥman I. (called Al-Nasir; 912-961) and his son Al-Ḥakim were the golden era for the Spanish Jews and Jewish science. 'Abd al-Raḥman's court physician and minister was Ḥasdai ben Isaac ibn Shaprut, the patron of Menahem ben Saruḳ, Dunash ben Labraṭ, and other Jewish scholars and poets. During his term of power the scholar Moses ben Enoch was appointed rabbi of Cordova, and as a consequence Spain became the center of Talmudic study, and Cordova the meeting-place of Jewish savants. After the downfall of Al-Ḥakim, who likewise favored the Jews, a struggle for the throne broke out between Sulaiman ibn al-Ḥakim and Mohammed ibn Hisham. Sulaiman solicited the assistance of Count Sancho of Castile, while Mohammed, through the agency of wealthy Jewish merchants in Cordova, obtained the aid of Count Ramon of Barcelona. For this Sulaiman took fearful revenge upon the Jews, expelling them mercilessly from city and country (1013). With the overthrow of the Banu Amir the power of the Mohammedan state in Spain came to an end,the mighty califate of Cordova being divided into twelve minor states under different califs. The Abbadites ruled in Seville, the Hammudites in Malaga, the Zayrids in Granada, the Beni-Hud in Saragossa, and others in Almeria, Toledo, Valencia, Niebla, etc. Several Jews left Cordova for Malaga, Granada, Toledo, Murcia, and Saragossa.

The arab/muslim cavalry of that era wasnt known exactly for being a heavy cavalry, but rather a fast, very mobile and versatile cavalry. That's one of the many reasons they defeated the heavy cavalry of the sassanids, and it's probably one of the reasons of their defeat at tours.

yes but heavy infantry can withstand near any attack light cavalry can throw at it and hand it back twice as hard, whilst organised

@@istoppedcaring6209 When the kingdom of the Persians came to an end, in the days of their king Khosro 1, the kingdom of the children of Hagar at once gained control over more or less the whole world, for they took the whole kingdom of the Persians. overthrowing all their warriors who prided themselves in the arts of war. We should not think of the advent (of the children of Hagar) as something ordinary, but as due to divine working. Before calling them, (God) had prepared them beforehand to hold Christians in honour, thus they also had a special commandment from God concerning our monastic station, that they should hold it in honour. Now when these people came, at God's command, and took over as it were both kingdoms, not with any war or battle, but in a menial fashion, such as when a brand is rescued out of the fire; not using weapons of war or human means. God put victory into their hands in such a way that the words written concerning them might be fulfilled, namely, 'One man chased a thousand and two men routed ten thousand'! How, otherwise, could naked men, riding without armour or shield, have been able to win, apart from divine aid, God having called them from the ends of the earth so as to destroy, by them, a sinful kingdom, and to bring low, through them. the proud spirit of the Persians. Only a short period passed before the entire world was handed over to the Arabs; they subdued all the fortified cities, taking control from sea to sea 2, and from East to West - Aigyptos and the whole of Mesrin, and from Crete to Cappadocia, from Yahelman 3 to the gates of Alan, Armenians, Syrians. Persians, Byzantines, Egyptians and all the intermediary regions: their hand was upon everyone, as the prophet says. Only half the Byzantine empire was left by them. Who can relate the carnage they effected in Greek territory, in Kush, in Spain, and in other distant regions, taking captive their sons and daughters and reducing them to slavery and servitude. Against those who had not ceased in times of peace and prosperity from fighting against their Creator, there was sent a barbarian people who had no pity on them. Having reached thus far, however, in the narrative, let us end this book here, and give praise to Father, Son and Holy Spirit for ever, Amen. JOHN BAR PENKAYE 7th century

@@rfui7675 they did hav heavy cav but yeah they mostly used light but well equiped cavalry

Medieval and roman battles top notch of fighting!

All battles are cool to learn about when you aren’t there… little different when you are in the middle of one.

It is because there are many more small-scale tactical decisions. Modern-day fighting requires large logistical thinking and overwhelming amounts of planning. Back then, it was more of a fight for survival at every turn.

@@JamesKovacs first battle of Fallujah , second battle of Fallujah , Abu Ghraib , plus about 5-6 more that the I personally participated in with USMC .. I was involved in about as small scale tactical fighting as you can get.. (hand to hand included) as were many other Marines. Tiny amounts of ammo and water to be rationed out on squad level and smaller. Cut off .. surrounded. Pretty small scale shit.

To me I have the a similar feeling multiplied by 100 when it's a battle in wich Napoleon was a part of, it's the stuff that religions are created of by how insane his victories were as well as the soldiers that followed him they seem like another breed of human capable of winning against all odds to forces sometimes 10 times superior.

There must have been an effective chain of command, there must have been a second in command. This would explain how the same night the army was leaderless, it made an organised retreat.

Don't forget the feodal system: many lords obeyed their superior because of the "hommage" system. The killing of a leader freeded his vassals, who may choose according to their heart or to some complex secondary allegiances, to the point of reversing the outcome of the battle. It was not very important here, but it was particularly important in other battles, such as Kosovo.

This is due to the nature of the muslim faith rather than mere technicalities and battle analysis. When such things happen to muslims, they go into the Japanese Kamakazi mode but in their own flavor becoming serious shit to defeat.

@@Mich4elCorleone non sense.

​@@MN-vz8qm say that to the Afghans

If the opposite had happened now, you would say Alhamdullah for Islam

😂😂😂 he won’t save you from hellfire

Didn’t they already do a series on that? I know it was not as detailed and focused mainly on Charlemagne but it is still very informative

​@@williamrobert9898 There is a video about the battle that "Song of Roland" references

​@@BunnyhopsX song of roland?

@@senseishu937 yeah. Its a french song that talks about battle od Roncevaux pass between forces of Charlemagne and Basques (in the song there are no Basques but Saracens). And the song talks about last moments of Roland, a knight serving Charlemagne.

Sources didn't viewed battle tour as not important battle, tour was skrmkish and raid even after tour the umayyad still continuously expedition and raiding into francia terrorties which the battle didn't stop umayyad they also defeated charles at nabronne 737, umayyad weren't intentionally to conquering francia but rather than raiding and marching into terroties to plunder cities for spolies and golds, abd rahman and his army was focusing for loots with no stragic goal and planning for battles but countine raiding for loots till as soon as they reach tour they coincidencely confront charles and engaging with franks army depsite the umayyad did a good charging attack on them and managed to push franks and advancing them they put charles under pressure and bad position had stuck in defensive and ressist them, the umayyad weren't fighting in faith but for the seek of loots, when charles send forces under odo to attack their camp they distract umayyad army and result in splitting army lines and causes umayyad army to be diviving and broke out ranks ended up half their army return their camp to protecting their spolies

No way bruz. The northerners are undefeated. They beat rome. The arabs got nothing on that.

@@chrisrace744 Wait... what? Hehe... Have you been to Sweden recently? Germany? Netherlands? Or maybe, to anywhere in Europe? It appears that the North did eventually fall to the "arabs", and they used the same tactics they used to get into Spain in 711 - the treason of those in charge of protecting their own people.

They've almost completely lost the current war against the Monoculture

@@chrisrace744 Had Muslims won, following would happen: 1. South france under Muslim control with no threat of reversal. 2. Without the Patronage of a strong Frankish empire in this timeline, there would be No Central Authority of Catholic Pope in Europe. 3. This would give Muslims to play a big Religious Diplomacy i.e, inviting pagan Germanic tribes/kingdoms north of France to Islam e.g, (Polish-lithuanian, baltics, Vikings etc.) 4. Vikings may also have accepted Islam seeing strong Muslim presence in Mediterranean and even in Atlantic. (Andalusia had a strong navy on Atlantic coast and defeated a Viking naval invasion as well)

@@chrisrace744 who beat Rome, Gauls or Muslim Arabs? you are on a history channel, so dont embarrass yourself!

Soldiers at this time didnt get paid a salary. They are paid with a portion of loot. I think most army at the time is like this. (Unless you are personal retinue of a noble). The bulk of the army are just levied peasants.

i agree with you. however the creed of muslim armies and what actually made them win battles were that they were "fearless" and their moto was called " either victory or martyrsim". read about yarmuk battle or any battle on the early stages of islam expansions.

@@timoalx10 I'm sure there are some soldiers who think they are doing gods work. But the vast majority are there for chances to loot and plunder. Hate to say it, but being greedy is just part of human nature.

true.... hence loosing this battle.

The same mistake but dont say "we never learn". Mistakes happen from time to time. As Allah says in the Quran: "If a wound should touch you - there has already touched the [opposing] people a wound similar to it. *And these days [of varying conditions] We alternate among the people* so that Allāh may make evident those who believe and [may] take to Himself from among you martyrs - and Allāh does not like the wrongdoers" Surah 3:140

Even in France we used to call it "Battle of Tours" a long time ago, then we changed it for "Battle of Poitiers" but the rest of the world kept calling of "Battle of Tours". The truth is we don't know exactly where it happened and it was probably somewhere between Tours and Poitiers lol.

@@viviyep thanks for this, i didn't know that

@@artquimine2170 avec plaisir ;)

History has always been “His Story” 🤷🏽

@viviyep Interesting, in germany its known as the battle of Tours and Poitiers, at least that is how i learned it in school

Big facts

is this accurate enough to use as a source

,, ,, "G - D, WILL'S, I T, !!,

incorrect. The Arabs tried twice to take Constantinople, but did not succeed. The Balkans not at all.

Which battle was it again that prevented them from expanding?

@@senseishu937 The city of Constatinople. The sieges failed twice.

@@senseishu937 Siege of Constantinople (717-718) and the Tours 732

Yeah,.I like it more than Kings and Generals,.People's Profile's is fantastic storytelling as well~

It really wasn’t that important. Had the Muslims won they would have presumably just kept raiding monasteries as there was no real value in conquering France during this period. This battle took place before the “medieval optimum” so the climate would have made france absolutely miserable to live in. Nothing grew there and the population was very small unskilled. Before modern historians like Gibbons nobody even knew much about this battle other than it was fought by Charles Martell who was related to Charlemagne.

@@lumanate1493 But in case of a Muslim victory, wouldn't it have changed the fate of Septimania and even Toulouse and some Aquitanian territories? Without Oddo, the Franks would have seized the land south of Loire river, and would have perhaps achieve a status quo with the masters of Narbonne then Toulouse. The Reconquista would have still happened, though.

​@@rjbmarchiac8693 Sources didn't viewed battle tour as not important battle, tour was skrmkish and raid even after tour the umayyad still continuously expedition and raiding into francia terrorties which the battle didn't stop umayyad they also defeated charles at nabronne 737, umayyad weren't intentionally to conquering francia but rather than raiding and marching into terroties to plunder cities for spolies and golds, abd rahman and his army was focusing for loots with no stragic goal and planning for battles but countine raiding for loots till as soon as they reach tour they coincidencely confront charles and engaging with franks army depsite the umayyad did a good charging attack on them and managed to push franks and advancing them they put charles under pressure and bad position had stuck in defensive and ressist them, the umayyad weren't fighting in faith but for the seek of loots, when charles send forces under odo to attack their camp they distract umayyad army and result in splitting army lines and causes umayyad army to be diviving and broke out ranks ended up half their army return their camp to protecting their spolies which was of their reasons defeated in tour

@@ghostd69 look an Muslim lair

​@@lumanate1493 France was the most populated area in Europe at the time since the down of the western Roman empire wtf are you trying to say ? And Aquitaine alone was richer than all Hispanic peninsula.

Yep best history channel

Bonofide? Bona fide?

Great move by Charles but if you want to learn about a real magician on the battlefield look up Khalid Ibn Walid

@@enthusiast0 You wanna see real magic on the battlefield? Sassanid General Shahbaraz, totally underrated.

​@@FlaviusBelisarius-ck6uv His army was defeated in battle of dhi al qar

I'm actually part French with Northern French surname. I find French history and France fascinating

Charlemagne is probably the father of all Europeans, similarly how Genghis Khan's DNA is in tens of millions of people. Powerful and prestigious people used to have powerful and prestigious kids who were prime candidates for marriage

French People with ethnic origin from the north have a high probability to be of Germanic (Frankish) ancestry. Particularly in the Nord Pas de Calais région where the Germanic haplogroup is dominant

Franks are germanic, not all Frenchmen of today have frankish ancestors. Hell, i went to paris this year, it looked like almost everyone has ancestors that fought on the muslim side in this war.

@@nein236 yeah because Frankfort and Berlin look very Germanic these days... didn't know the Kurds and Turks were some sort of Saxon people...

​@JZ's BFF not all battles are the same. A lot of fuss is made about the Polish hussar charge against Ottomans, but its likely that without this victory the Polish would have been muslim in the first place

@JZ's BFF like I said, it's thought of as a turning point for Muslim expansion from the east but without Charles Martel's victory its possible that the west at that time would have been muslim in the first place

​@JZ's BFF there were Polish Muslim Tartars who took part in the relief of Vienna and Christians who took part in the attack under Turkish direction. In 1453 there were Christians who took part in the attack and Muslims who took part in the defence no cause is perfect or pure!

Septimania is not a kingdom, its the old latin name for the region southeast france nowadays knows as provence.

@@karwaktorink not Provence but a part of Languedoc

@@Pocuslol indeed my bad

Septimania do not last for long. It was a descendant of the Marquisate of Gothia and will evolve later in a land split between France and Aragon influences. Untill it became totally French as the Languedoc (capital Toulouse) after the Albigensian crusade in 1229. It still exist today as part of modern Occitania region (6 M inhabitants).

Well no Because Muslims didnt destroy christianity Look at the Coptic Christians in Jereusalam and Egypt Theyve been there over a millenia

You do not know anything about the history of Islam and Muslims There are millions of Christians inside the Arab and Islamic world.. and there is no one who kills them, tortures them, erases or prevents the reading of the Bible.. You are wrong and do not know anything about Muslims.

Thank you so much for the support! Very kind of you

"Être Marteau" is also a synonym in French meaning that you are going completely crazy often in very violent way, probably because of Charles battles.

Sources didn't viewed battle tour as not important battle, tour was skrmkish and raid even after tour the umayyad still continuously expedition and raiding into francia terrorties which the battle didn't stop umayyad they also defeated charles at nabronne 737, umayyad weren't intentionally to conquering francia but rather than raiding and marching into terroties to plunder cities for spolies and golds, abd rahman and his army was focusing for loots with no stragic goal and planning for battles but countine raiding for loots till as soon as they reach tour they coincidencely confront charles and engaging with franks army depsite the umayyad did a good charging attack on them and managed to push franks and advancing them they put charles under pressure and bad position had stuck in defensive and ressist them, the umayyad weren't fighting in faith but for the seek of loots, when charles send forces under odo to attack their camp they distract umayyad army and result in splitting army lines and causes umayyad army to be diviving and broke out ranks ended up half their army return their camp to protecting their spolies which was of their reasons defeated in tour

@@ommsterlitz1805 ça veut surtout dire qu'il martel la tete des gens qui disent de la merde.

And all those civilizations lost everything. Yep. The actual colonizers by the sword

Thanks man, great seeing you during the premiere!

​@@HistoryMarchehello, great video as always, btw when are you going to upload Hannibal's next episode?

Thank you so much for the support. Very kind of you.

Musl8ms? Yes of course 😂

so your saying i can use this as a source alright ill take your word

Dont't forget Reconquista.

Sad moment

Ok so what is the problem if europe be came muslims

@@user-ph7ou8pm6n women would have less freedom, islamic radicals would take over, and there would be sharia law imposed and terrorism

@@user-ph7ou8pm6n then it would have been next middle east. Everybody knows whats happening in middle east. Also Islamic invaders were well known for their mass genocide of infidels and raping and enslaving the women. Islam is not a religion of peace and so its a good thing at least main europe was left out of its brunt.

Most Goths are~

@@matthewmatt5285 I don’t think he was a Goth.

@@duaneaikins4621 Sounds as such,. Either way doesn't make it less True~

​@@matthewmatt5285 Odonis in Latin, Odon or Eudes in French, Odo in English, Otto in German ...

@@matthewmatt5285 Eudes is not gothic.

Where was that before they captured the entire Iberian peninsula?

@@The-Last-Caliphate It was after. Then following ALL the Muslims were defeated again and again as they ran cowardly from battle until Spain was retaken. Similarly, Muslims ran and ran from the 67 war with Israel where the Jews were outnumbered significantly but they had heart while the Muslims armies did not. Another example was when the Caliphate was finally crushed and there was no more islamic empire at the end of WW1, you found it was the Muslims fighting Muslims so there is no caliphate anymore. Nice username. There is no caliphate anymore.

@lleyTheSnakeHunter I am not disputing the fact that Muslims get defeated in battle. I was trying to show you if you haven't already noticed a pattern here. When non-Muslims capture our lands, it doesn't take us more than a century to reclaim them and come back even stronger than before and we go Khalid Ibn Al-Walid mode again. But when we conquer a land of non-Muslims, it takes them decades to do a come back if at all. examples: We remained in Al-Andalus 700 years. We remained in Constantinople for 571 years so far. We had Jerusalem for 332 years before the Fatimid empire took it from us (Shia are disbelievers for us). We had Jerusalem again for 730 years after kicking out the crusaders. Now, how long have the disbelievers been in Muslim lands for? Crusaders in Jerusalem 88 years. Mongols 55 years and we sent them back home as Muslims (funny they chose Islam over Christianity even though they were teaming up with them and marrying from them) Zionists 76 years (and there's already a strong military resistance going full scale against them). Liberal colonialism? maximum 132 years in Algeria by France. This is the bigger picture of history. And the reason is we don''t ppiss off the locals. We don't mass genocide them like Israel, France, USA, Crusaders, Mongols and Shia. You wanna stay in a land, control your weapons. That's the only way. Genocide is like a boomerang. By the way, you are Christian, you can't flex Jewish wins.

@@MarkPelleyTheSnakeHunter About the Caliphate. the Caliphate is already here. Towards the end of the Ottoman Caliphate, the Ottomans were weak so they had to collapse. The west ceased the opportunity to get to Palestine and they were successful but they brought all this science fiction tech to Palestine risking it being taken by Palestinians which can enable them to bring an even stronger Caliphate in Palestine. Now, it's just a matter of time until Palestinian soldiers are married to Israeli tech and then what? traitor Egypt, Jordan, KSA go down. Shia Lebanon, Syria nd Iraq go down. Iran ends up between two Jihadi powers: Al-Quds and Kabul. which means Iran goes down as well. Tadaaaa! Caliphate🎉. And you know what's interesting? some of these events are described in Islamic eschatology: It is mentioned that 7 Arab princes will fall at once and the Caliphate will one day be based in Al-Quds. It makes perfect sense now if Israel collapses which it definitely will. It will spark a lot of jokes about how the west basically just strengthened the Caliphate (from divided Ottomans to Unite Palestinians) just like they strengthened Taliban.

Yes, the same brave Christians who would sack the city of Constantinople.

lmao most immigrants are black african christian, while you have the right to be concerned saying europe has been conquered by muslims is wrong

Bro immigrants are good high level ones most big scientist in Islamic golden age were not arabs but multi ethnic that traveled to Baghdad

I think RU-vid comments are not reality but Europeans seems to care a lot about skin color unlike the the diverse middle east

@@ayoub.3939 Yeah why would the middle east care? Theyre a bunch of mix raced mongrels. Europeans want to stay pure and white. It's not a coincidence that all technology and civilization has been invented by white people. Without white people the world would be chaos and hell.

Lol it was liberalism that killed Europe but I'm not complaining as British Muslim

For that, you gotta do your own research. Medieval battles around this period tend to lack details and evidence.

As far i know, it was about a shield wall for stopping arrows form the Muslim's cavalry. But i don't know the details.

Eh.

Charles was defeated in battle of nabronne 737 and battle of berre reiver umayyad didn't fielded that large army as you imgaine they were few thousands lberia dont have large army umayyad max were 30k they didn't send all their army to nabronne only some of them, charles ambush them and did superise attack when they were in their way to nabronne

@@ghostd69 20k 30k this is what i have seen... And the failure of the siege of Narbonne what it means? ... Well Charles just removed his troops around Narbonne, he didn't had the means tout win the siege and he hag more omportant affairs in the north. This is not a big defeat , unlike the Berre River for the muslims.

@@jean-louispech4921 30k and 20k weren't fielded to this battle they were 10k umayyad army in lberia have totoally of 20k after they lost many of their army tours so they not willing to assemble their entirely army and left lberia unguarded there was continuously internal issue and affairs in lberia to deal with it aswell, charles was itentionally to take over nabronne like he did with rest citites he managed marching into deeply nabronne and umayyad repelled him and forced him leave nabronne and managed to capture narbonne, he only defeat arabs in skrmkish and monior engagement, berre river he ambushed and superise attack renforced army by cutting off their road

Really important point....

they outnumbered the franks and had more cavalry than the franks in this battle

@@HarrDarr Exhausted soldiers After the Battle of Bordeaux in a strange land And the cold weather they are not used to

The world would be a better place without Arabs to be fair

There a lot of reasons for their expansion unrelated to their fighting prowess. I would also argue that they outnumbered their opponent more often then not. The Eastern Roman Empire and the Sassanid empire had a long running fued that lasted on and off for 300 years, but a 30 year war that concluded 5 years before the Battle of Yarmouk. This battle divided the Eastern Roman Empire in two, and fractured the North African portion into provinces not cohesive nation. Not to mention the plague of Justinian in 541 and continued for 250 years. The result is in 10 years it wiped out half of the Roman Empire population and ravaged the younger generation every 10-15 years for 250 years. This plague did not really affect the Arabs at all until they started capturing large junks of territory. The rise of the Avars and Bulgars to the north of the Eastern Roman Empire also divided the e priory attention. A good podcast is the history of Byzantium if you want an easy to follow narrative.

​@@Agrippa871I mean the Arabs had come off a massive civil war and subjugation of the other powerful Arab tribes and nations in the ridda wars while the war between the Persians and Byzantium was happening too so yeah they weren't exactly a fresh force either. Plus according to many sources they were in fact outnumbered in most of the major battles against them because they were fighting on two fronts after all against the two superpowers of the time.

So would Richard the Lionheart upon seeing the state of the United Kingdom, our european leaders have betrayed us

or Leo III from Byzantine

​@@zackdeew9757 Constantinople was the shield of Europe and the Crusaders sacked it, never forget that.

@@zippyparakeet1074Constantinople would’ve fallen even without the Crusaders sacking it

@@deus_vult8111 nope the sacking of Constantinople is the reason why the Empire got weak to the point of no return. As long as Constantinople stood strong, the Empire had every hope if a restorer Emperor like Alexios took the throne.

@@zippyparakeet1074 Not really. Once they rejected the Council of Florence they were done.

Definetly, kept the Muslims out of Europe, but more importantly Islam, which was the biggest threat to Christianity and to their control and revenue.

​@@sj9367yeah because islam can kill Christian

​@@sj9367yeah because islam can kill Christian

For the whole of humanity. Arabs today would have nothing our civilization has produced of they'd won back then. No electricity, no internal combustion engine, no internet, no suicide vests, no nothing.

any sources that the abbassids allied with the franks? as far as I know, the abbassids, persians and romans considered the Franks and all non-roman Europeans as backward and uncivilized barbarians, not worthy of real diplomatic contact

​@@akiogood4712 just watch the battle of roncevaux by this very channel

Then prince umayyad Abd rahman i known as Saqr Quraish defeated both abbasid and king frankish charlmange in lberia

@@ghostd69 This isn’t true. Charlemagne never lost a battle except for Ronceveux Pass ambush. And that ambush was set by the Basque people.

@@terro3842 Charles was defeated at nabronne 737, charlmange managed to expanded and conquered the major of erouope region but couldn't take over lberia he was failed on his campaign and basque people was under umayyad battle was also involed by Sulayman al-Arabi who was served under umayyad

How do you work that out Since the siege of Constantinople was over a decade before the battle of tours So how could it be responsible for stopping the Arab advance in to Europe when the last attempt was the battle of tours If the Arab siege was the reason then the battle of tours wouldn't of happened

@@IrishCinnsealach well because in the seventh century Islam was much more united and dangerous and the sieges of Constantinople were a great loss of material and men for the Muslims. While at the beginning of the eighth century the Umayyads had now stopped their expansion (the territories were now too immense to be managed well) and shortly thereafter the Abassids they would have started a war that in a very short time would have deposed the Umayyads and confined them to Iberia. This campaign itself is mostly treated as a looting mission and not a conquest one.

@@s.p.q.r2104 @S.P.Q.R what are you talking about? Both battles happened in the 8th century The siege of Constantinople was 717 The battle of tours was 732 The beginning of the eighth century is literally the date of the Umayyad invasion of Iberia Stopped their expansion If they had then there'd be no siege of Constantinople No conquest of Sicily and no single source calls the battle of tours a looting campaign Just stop the embarrassing excuses Who takes 25 thousand men on a looting campaign 😂😂

There was no value in west or north Europe. Frankly only Constantinople was valued of all Europe. Which the Byzantines defended very well. The Umayyads had no issues in penetrating European lands be the Caucasus or France etc. In fact the only reason they kept Spain (which also was conquering as a raid initially) was because they won so easily and had unshakable control.