📜This video is not sponsored. Support House of History on Patreon and for as little as $1 per video you get ad-free early access to my videos and help support my work: www.patreon.com/houseofhistory
@House of History I have been following your channel for a while now as i appreciate your attention to detail and was more than willing to dwelve into prussian history, however i didnt expect at all this sudden turn of events so to say and you switching to a much different era and subject with Charles Martel. My grandma's family name wich i use as common name is "Martheleur", descendant of one of the many bastard sons Charles Martel had as any king, that was lucky enough to be recognized and given a derivate name, title and a bit of land in the flanders region. Once again, you didnt miss anything about the larger context and appropriate explanations. The frankish army was slow back then and mainly consisted of heavy infantry while the Umayyads relied on expert light cavalry; their whole army was generally speaking much more mobile than the frankish pone, therefore a lot of actions where conducted to slow down their progression as much as possible to give the multiple slow frankish troops coming from different parts of the realm enough time to gather. As you pointed out, it is now considered after several debates that the ratio was indeed somewhere along 2 to 1 in favour of the Umayyads that day, however the terrain was favorable to the franks and denied the Umayyads a lot of their mobility, therefore allowing the frankish heavy cavalry to make contact with the ennemy for the first time. Before that battle, the frankish cavalry had been thouroughly destroyed in a few skirmishes by the much more mobile Umayyads. Well done sir, I had chills just like when i was a kid. Very enjoyable content as usual, keep up your high quality work with the support of the community !
Also appreciate the fact that you mentionned the casualties are widely exagerated, wich is entirely true. The frankish army would have never been able to catch up the Umayyads even while they were in retreat after they got the upper hand, both because of heavier armor but also fatigue. The battle was used as propaganda to cement Charles Martel's power and reputation as a legit king has as he had stolen the throne and wasnt meant to rule originally.
Last but not least, it is not certain a loss at Tours would have made the frankish kingdom crumble entirely unless Charles died himself, wich would have likely cause civil war. A larger frankish army was already gathering in the north when the battle of Tours took place and several troops didnt have enough time to reach the battlefield that day even though a lot of efforts were made to slow down the ennemy and gather as many men as possible. It is debatable, but i tend to believe as i just stated that unless Charles died in battle, the kindgom wouldnt fall after a defeat at Tours. It would have been a serious blow for sure but not a killing one in my opinion depending on the circumstances and aftermath. The frankish army had no possibility to flee the battlefield just like they couldnt catch up with their ennemy, therefore they were willing to stand their ground. A total destruction of the frankish army entranched in the woods that day would have been very costly for the Umayyads.
YES! Early medieval history is so underrepresented, like it's weird how so many people know about the Reconquista but most don't know about Asturias or Pamplona
It’s a difficult era to study because the written sources are rare, literacy collapsed and economic activity shrunk After the fall of Rome, Western Europe went through a terrible crisis for centuries, recovery began from the 10 th as Viking and Magyar invasion ceased and the Muslim pressure was contained
@@guzy1971 yes. There still are some accounts about the time tho. Not as much as during later times but still enough for some key events to be described, such as the first battle of the kingdom of Asturias and the invasion of the basque lands made by the franks
@@guzy1971 You're going off an outdated view of history. Western Europe was going through a terrible crisis long before Rome fell. Recovery began with Charlemagne, before the Vikings were even active.
@@LordVader1094 thanks for your comment I simplified of course The collapse of Rome was a process, 476 bc is just a symbolic date The Carolingian Renaissance was a temporary recovery The viking and Magyar invasions began then, Caroligian state failed to stabilize The royal power get fragmented into multiples local powers creating feudalism But at the end of the 10h century the situation began to stabilize : creation of a Christian Magyar kingdom, end of the Viking raids Drang nach Osten of the Germans containment of muslims It was then possible to build something in the long run
This great battle probably saved Western Europe from Arabic colonisation ( well except Spain) spain and portugal were already colonised. We Europeans owe Charles a great debt.
The Moors did NOT conquer all of the peninsula. Under the leadership of PELAYO at the battle of COVADONGA in 718 A.D., the Muslims were defeated and never able to occupy Asturias. This was the beginning of the glorious RECONQUISTA. ¡Viva España!
Nice documentary on the Battle of Tours. The Europeans fought the Muslim invaders for centuries, and the Slavic peoples defended Eastern Europe during Islamic attacks. Also, the two battles for Vienna are fascinating.
Human perceptions are shaped by one's society and the villification of the other. Couple centuries ago Europe hated atheism, today they hate Organized Religion. Perceptions change with time and with societal experiences. Each society has its own experiences that makes its perception. But perception isnt always based on Truth.
@@blaiseragon8142 Muslim women choose Modesty of their own volition to please God, just like Nuns do. Infact all humanity practiced similar modesty to what Muslim women do today. It is only the Modernity and rejection of Religion, God and Morality/Modesty that women like not to cover themselves today.
I really enjoy your videos especially those on the Prussian wars. Would you ever do a series or Video on Louis XIV's wars against William III of Orange? Dutch war, 9 Years war, etc Their rivalry and antagonism was one of Modern histories greatest. As an Irishman of mixed Protestant and catholic heritage William III is a figure of both loving and loathing to different communities.
That's a very good suggestion. I am not sure when, if I will cover it. I am currently working on a series about the Hungarian revolution of 1848 and the German wars of unification.
Most defeats in battles were result of someone panicking and retreating, hold your ground men! It’s crazy because if they didn’t retreat Abd Al rahman might’ve actually won, but well played Odo he doesn’t get enough credit for this.
Unity is a Decisive factor in most wars. One that is more Cohesive/United, outlasts the other. Recovering from setbacks and implementing Complex maneuvers/tactics are also made possible by unity factor
Same could be said about the Muslim conquest of Spain. During the Battle of Guadalete, rivals of the Visigothic king fled the battlefield, allowing the Muslims to overwhelm the remaining Visigothic troops.
@@EmisoraRadioPatio I watched that battle sources claim 3 reasons on why they fled 1: it’s because Tariq(the Umayyad general) led a charge and smashed through the infantry which caused the flanks break and flee 2: the flanks betrayed Roderic and left him there 3: Roderic’s crown was knocked down so they thought his soldiers thought he was gone and they retreated. Am not sure which one to believe but we can safely say that the Visigoths didn’t retreat for no reason at all like the Idiot Umayyads in this battle especially because they were actually winning this battle
@@MJ511KW From the summary of the battle of Tours, Umayyad troops were confused when they saw Odo's troops behind them. That would give the apprehension that they're being outflanked. It's not surprised they would panic. It's quite frightening to all of the sudden see your enemies behind you.
@@EmisoraRadioPatio not that’s not entirely true the Umayyads were greedy they wanted to save their loot while they should send the reserves to deal with odo instead all of them broke and went after odo and they left their leader Rahman alone. Hell they could’ve even ignored odo and left him to ravage their camps and focused on Charles because once they destroyed Charles then it’s done France is under their control, but yeah it was a brain lapse moment for the moors in this battle and yes some of them panicked when they shouldn’t
@@Diegomax22 c'est pas parce qu'elle n'est pas enseignée à l'école qu'elle n'a pas de sens. Quand on s'intéresse à l'histoire de France et de l'Europe, cette bataille a une place primordiale. Comme celle de Bouvines en 1214 ou celle de Castillon en 1453 (meme année que la chute de Constantinople). Hastings 1066 aussi dans une certaine mesure... des batailles peu connues du grand public français mais pourtant pivot dans l'histoire de France.
Vous êtes sûr que ce n’est plus enseigné ? Je pense que ce n’est pas vrai même si j’admets qu’on doit y passer moins de temps ou qu’on en minore l’importance dans le contexte idéologique actuel
Very interesting. Thanks 👍 I knew about the Charles Martel's victory in Poitiers. But didn't knew what had happened before and after. The reconquest of the iberian peninsula was another epic history.
A documentary I saw claimed a major factor in Charles victory was disguised Frankish troops ran through the enemy camp, screaming that they'd been defeated. This led to a chaotic retreat.
I haven't caught one of your episodes in a while; enjoyed every one previous immensely. This one showed up on my new phone's RU-vid crawl... Spectacular. Your production quality and well-spoken, in-depth explanations of these critical events has grown in excellence, warms my heart & awakens my deeper understanding. Couldn't ask any more from an excellent history teacher. MegaGratsies!!
imagine a Fractured province of Franks havign to face the entirety of Arab colonised Spain despite overwhelming numbers Frankis discipline stood. This is what happens when you face soldiers against raiders more used to pillaging and looting.
That "Fractured province of Franks" was not a pity kingdom. Both Charles Martel and Odo had well experienced army while Umayyad governer didn't have a proper Umayyad army like the ones were operating in Anatolia, Caucasus, Central Asia and India.
Rodrigo was deserted by half his army (Witiza's brothers) in the middle of the battle, which was not by the Guadalete River but by the lagoon of Janda. Galicia was part of the Visigothic kingdom, I don't know why it appears as a separate entity on the map.
New to the channel and thanks for the vid! My favorite battle of Tours video was from BazBattles, which was made 6 years ago. Glad to see someone show love to this time period.
The map following the moves of Tariq in the Iberian peninsula at the start was incredibly inaccurate. The signaled river is not the Guadalete, but the Guadiana. The battle was much more south, in what is actually the province of Cadiz. Tariq landed in Gibraltar (Yabal Tariq or Tariq's mount), not in Almería. The narrative also seams to merge the figures of Tarif and Tariq. Very poorly researched in that aspect, but cool graphics, hope it will improve.
Six years later, the Arabs came back and took several cities in southern France. Charles Martel had to come back to liberate those cities and, outside the walls of Narbonne, he met their large army at the Battle of the River Berre where he annihilated them. The second great campaign is one we seldom hear about.
He was my 37th great grandfather. Philippe Jean Kogler, You → Denise Kogler, your mother → Marcelle Helene Marchoux, her mother → Jean Texier, her father → Jean Texier, his father → Pierre Texier, his father → Marquis Etienne Texier de Javerlhac, his father → Marquis Etienne-Marie Texier de Javerlhac, his father → Marquis Pierre-Francois-Marie Texier de Javerlhac, his father → Marquis Henri-Bernard Texier de Javerlhac, his father → Marquis Bernard Texier de Javerlhac, his father → Comte Jean-Francois Texier de Javerlhac, his father → Henri de Texier, his father → Francois de Texier, Seigneur du Breuil, his father → Catherine de Texier, his mother → Baron Raymond de Lambertye de Montbrun, her father → Seigneur François De Lambertie, his father → Jean De Lambertie, his parent → Catherine De Lambertie, his mother → Allemande de Gontaut Biron, her mother → Gaston de Gontaut, IV, her father → Pierre De Gontaut Biron, his father → Gaston de Gontaut Biron, III, his father → Marguerite Marqueze de Lomagne, his mother → Obrie de L'Isle-Jourdain, her mother → Bernard Jourdain de L'Isle-Jourdain, Comte de L'Isle-Jourdain & de Dunes, her father → Bernard I de L'Isle-Jourdain, his father → Jourdain I de Lisle, his father → Raymond I de Lisle, his father → Emma Taillefer, his mother → Guillaume III Taillefer, comte de Toulouse, her father → Adélaïde la Blanche d'Anjou, Reine consort d'Aquitaine, his mother → Fulk II, Count of Anjou, her father → Fulko I "Le Rouge", Comte de Anjou, his father → Ingelger, count of Anjou, his father → Petronelle d'Auxerre de Gâtinais, Comtesse de Anjou, his mother → Hugo, Archchancellor of the Empire, her father → Charlemagne, Römisch-deutscher Kaiser, his father → Pippin der Jüngere, his father → Karl "der Hammer" Martell, his father
I'm very happy to see that people are finally becoming aware that Galicia, not Asturias and expecially not Vizcaya was the only part of Iberia that as far as we know was never fully (if at all) occupied. While the reconquista undoubtedly began in Asturias, Asturias was indeed, briefly occupied for two years before Pelayo rebelled and established the Kingdom of Asturias. Asturias only incorporated Galicia in 736, but this doesn't mean Galicia was occupied by the Moors before, Most online maps show Galicia as being occupied, because they assume everything that was not Asturias was necessarily under Ummayad occupation. This is a very simplistic view of history, in reality there were not two clear sides with a fixed frontline, most people everywhere were basically autonomous and self-sustaining, especially in the border regions, and this is most likely the case with Galicians. Considering the political and geographical isolation of the area, the average peasant probably didn't even know the Kingdom of the Visigoths had collapsed until the Alfonso III incorporated the area into his domain.
@@markgarrett3647 At Hastings, the Normans feigned retreat, which drew out the enemy from their entrenched position, so no, frontal assault did not work at Hastings.
@@markgarrett3647 But not against a prepared position, since the defenders were drawn out during the counter-attack. hence why hastings does not count.
The insanity of people as a collective is clearly demonstrated in the beginning of this video. Lack of cooperation, internal strife, wrongbpriotities, and lack of care for one another are fundamental shortcoming of mankind till this day.
My mother thought she was 100% Portuguese she was born there. She did that 23 and me thing. She ended up being 30% North African I guess it makes more sense than I thought.
I'm pretty sure that Al Gaffiqi invaded Aquitaine via Pamplona and not Narbonne, also the border was not "at the Pyrenees": Narbonne was part of the Visigothic Kingdom, while Pamplona was not.
That day the world was saved and not just Europe by defeating the Muslims. Imagine how Europe would have been today as an islamic continent. We would forever be in debt to Charles Martel
The Muslims had no idea what they were up against here, the first truly professional European army since the fall of Rome. These Franks were tremendously experienced and drilled.
This was one of Major-General J.F.C. Fuller's "Decisive Battles of the Western World". Certainly history would have been different if the Franks had lost. Thanks for the video.
Experts disagree. They say Odo and his personal bodyguard charged on a horse to the supply camp by baiting 1 spearman through the gate, then his personal bodyguard held the gate open and allowed the baggage carts to be brought to the nearby cathedral. Everything happened to quickly that the Unayyads didn't even manage to assemble their troops in time for the battle. Source: My Age of Empires 2 playthrough P.S. it was a hella fun campaign
Um dos maiores supererois de todos os tempos,esse Martel! Charles Magno,com seus exercitos carniceiros,sua politica de terra arrasada,que dizer??BRAVO POVE FRANCO!!!
I am particularly divided on the salvific importance of Poitiers. On the one hand, I believe it was a very bitter setback for the Arabs. However, on the other hand, I think it wasn't a "salvific" battle, as many people think. Even military historians were/are divided on the importance of Poitiers. The civilizational importance of the Battle of Poitiers has been dividing the historians. In one category, there are historians who confirm its historical and "salvific" importance in European/Western history, stating that Poitiers did save medieval Catholic civilization from Islamic expansion, just as Marathon and Salamis had saved the Greeks from the Persians. Edward Gibbon himself, in particular, was one of the historians who confirmed the salvific importance of Poitiers. According to Gibbon, if the Muslims had won at Poitiers, the Arabs could have conquered the Frankish Kingdom and, consequently, the rest of Catholic Europe. Other historians, such as the German Hans Delbrück, also claimed that Poitiers DID save Catholic Europe. According to Delbrück, if it weren't for Charles Martel's victory at Poitiers, there would be no Charlemagne, Papal States, and Holy Roman Empire. Therefore, according to Delbrück, there would be no Christian Europe. This historical vision, in my historical perspective, makes perfect sense. It was Charlemagne, the so-called "Father of Europe" (Pater Europae), who laid the foundation of what would become European civilization. It was from the division of the Empire created by him, which took place during the Treaty of Verdun (843), that present-day France 🇫🇷 and Germany 🇩🇪 would be created. Without Charlemagne's Carolingian Empire, there would be no Kingdom of France, which had been the natural political evolution of West Francia (Francia occidentalis), created after the Treaty of Verdun. In other words, West Francia, which was initially ruled by Charlemagne's grandson, Charles the Bald, had been the first political stages of what would become the Kingdom of France and, consequently, the modern French Republic. The same goes for the Holy Roman Empire (future Germany), which evolved from East Francia (Francia Orientalis), initially ruled by Louis II. Without Charlemagne, who was the driving force behind the political reunification of post-Roman Europe, there would be no unified Europe. Furthermore, had it not been for Charles Martel's victory at Poitiers, there would be no Pepin the Short, the one who established the Papal States. Other historians, however, have completely different views. The Italian Alessandro Barbero, for example, claimed that the Arabs did not want to conquer the Frankish Kingdom, but only to conduct a plundering campaign. In other words, the Arab campaign was not a war of conquest but one of plunder. Moreover, other historians claimed that Poitiers did not mean much for the Arabs. Poitiers, therefore, did not stop the Arab advance. It was indeed a terrible setback for the Muslim expansion, but it did not have the decisive and "salvific" aspect that many people think. MY historical perspective, however, carries a bit of both strands of thought. If on the one hand, I believe that Poitiers had been significant, representing a considerable setback for the Muslim expansion; on the other hand, I particularly believe that the Second Arab Siege of Constantinople (717-18) was MUCH worse for the Umayyads, whether in terms of casualties and military morale. Why do I think that Poitiers was not so decisive? It's Very simple. The Frankish Kingdom would be invaded once again by the Umayyad Arabs, even AFTER Poitiers. In 735, three years after Poitiers, Governor Uqba ibn al-Hajjaj (734-740), the governor of Al-Andalus, launched another military campaign against Gaul. This second Arab invasion had been even more devastating than the first offensive carried out by Governor Abd al-Rahman al-Ghafiqi, since the second invasion carried a certain "vengeful" aspect. In an attempt to avenge the "martyrs", as the Muslims called their companions killed at Poitiers, Uqba raided several cities in southern France. The vibrant city of Arles, for example, was looted. Avignon, which would later become the home of the Popes, had also been captured. Moreover, Uqba's forced would carry out raids in Lyon, Burgundy and Piedmont. Despite the defeat at Poitiers, the Umayyads remained in control of Septimania for another 27 years! Septimania, including its main city, Narbonne, "Arbuna" for the Arabs, became a Muslim foothold in Gaul until 759! However, paradoxically, I also believe in the importance of Charles Martel's victory at Poitiers! If Charles Martel had been defeated, all of Gaul/France would have quickly been taken, just as Spain was taken by Tariq ibn Ziyad. Had Martel been defeated, there would have been no other European force capable of defeating the Arabs, at least not in Gaul. Paris, the Frankish capital, would be conquered and plundered. The Rhine, one of Europe's largest rivers, would probably also be crossed. Charles Martel and his army, in a certain sense, were Europe's "last line of defense".
Basically at the time the battle didnt really mean much to the muslims however now looking at it with hindsight it would have completely altered Europes and probably the world's history
Another thing I would like to mention is that when muslims invaded Iberia it was merely a raiding party and was it was not (initially) the goal of the muslims to subdue Iberia however after the visigothic armies were decisively crushed that is what happened I have a feeling that the same would happen if the muslims defeated the Frank's at tours
Pretty much appreciate your analysis bringing up historical sources, appart from a few things like your conclusion. Umayyad central power was being questionned and challenged already, if you take northern Africa for exemple conflict was already appearing between different muslim factions. You also fail to mention that the second wave of raids that took place over the years following the battle of Tours (and not Poitiers... time to give up with the frankish propaganda stating the arabs never crossed the Loire...) where raids indeed, the Ummayads avoided another pitched battle with the franks. You mentionned Governor Uqba ibn al-Hajjaj, he was himself crushed at the battle of the river Berre (739 or 740) by Charles who came to relieve Narbonne wich at the time was still governed by muslims. Whenever it came to pitched battles the Umayyad didnt stand a chance unless fighting on large open ground. Governor Uqba ibn al-Hajjaj himself went on setting outposts in his retreat in an attempt to slow down a frankish counter attack that never came (the franks did hold several outposts in Spain after the Battle of Tours and their deals with berber leaders but considered the natural barrier formed by the pyrenees as a solmid anchor point and therefore never meant to invade Spain). Governor Uqba ibn al-Hajjaj went on going back to northern Africa in order to crush Berber uprisings (caused by the very poor treatment inflicted upon them by the Umayyads: Kids forcibly recruited in the Umayyad army, women taken away to fill the caliph's harem in Damascus, more than unfair taxation and the re-emergence of the Kharijites, Ali's followers since the First Fitna, as a serious counter power and counter ideology to the Umayyads...) wich in turn caused his own downfall. The recent campaigns organised and promoted by questionnable muslims historians trying to depict a unified Umayyad caliphate when it was everything but that is nothing short of fantasy and lies, therefore i tend to disagree with your conclusion both in regards the actual politics reality of the times and as a descendant of a bastard son of Charles Martel that studied the era for decades. I also tend to consider Edward Gibbon's writings as not reliable, you need to take in account he was a member of the english whig party in the 1700's and was part of these british historians obsessed with the old heritage of the Roman Empire saved by the franks as an excuse for Great Britain's expansion in his era over muslim controlled territories in the building of the British Empire.. Take with caution everything he wrote as it is objective propaganda. Lastly when it comes to Umayyad control of southern France that remained after the battle, it is pretty much a grey area since on one hand several small alliances were made between berbers and franks and on the other hand keep in mind Charles usurped his kingship and it took time to bring everyone around him. Don't be fooled though, even with the disagreements between frankish lords over kingship the realm was a much stronger foe than the wisigothic kingdom for the Umayyads and would unlikely fall after one defeat, even an important one. Charles dying at Tours however may have caused a serious civil war the Umayyad could have gained from that's for sure. This question is still debatable nowadays but it does seem very unlikely the frankish kingdom would have fallen considering foreign support was already gathering behind Charles as well, his victory only cemented his claim as King of all franks. One last thing, the battle at Tours was conducted as a slowing effort by Charles since the frankish army was slow moving and took a long time to gather, a second and much larger force was already assembling in the north around Tournai and its surroundings that included foreign support. The franks were not done after a defeat at Tours...
Rightly said. Had Charles been defeated, there would be no Strong Christian power in Western europe to christianize pagan Germans and other pagans up north. Plus no French Patronage of Catholic church so no central authority of Catholic Pope. Plus Southern france under Muslim control with no threat of being reversed. Without central Pope authority, no Reconquista either in South france or in Spain. Muslims would have an equal chance of trying to convince french rivals up north to convert to Islam. (Germans, saxons, vikings, polish etc.....) Religious Diplomacy would matter a lot.
Most wonderful introduction and informative episode about Charles Martel King and his successful strategies repulsed of Amayyed invasions of South of France 🇫🇷 and Dutch territories...thank you (a house 🏠 of history )channel
Islam and Muslims was the catalyst of the Westerners to do their best ,It would not be a Western civilization as it is now if there was no Islam and muslims. Westerners have benefited a lot from Muslims and Islamic civilization unfortunately
Would have been interested to know what armaments the two sides fielded at the time. As the Franks were renowned for their throwing axes named after them Franziska (also a popular female name in the Frankish parts of Germany to this day). You spoke of a phalanx like formation used by them, so I guess they used predominantly spears and kite shields? Or did they adapt to the amount of horsemen fielded by their enemies and used lances on foot? Were stirrups already implemented by the Muslim horsemen at that point in time?
I have seen a lot of the video and I must say that the part about the invasion of the Iberian Peninsula is badly told and there are some serious geographical errors, so I suggest that you redo that part. This is not criticism for criticism's sake but a way to help make the video better.
The only serious geographic error I caught was placing of the Rhone River on the west side of the Massif Centrale, instead of the east. What others did you spot?
@@pietergeerkens6324 Another geographical error I have noticed is that the river that is marked as the Guadalete river is actually the Gudiana river when the Guadalete river is further downstream.
@@VonMaisten Yes the battle happened way down south than depicted. Plus Tariq landed at Gibraltar not as shown in video. Infact, Gibraltar (derived from arabic Jabal-al-Tariq) means "Mountain of Tariq".
I love the video and your content in general but i found this one a bit one sided. What with the thesis that the battle was just a raid by the arabs and not a huge turnaround? Especially because it was only immortalized as a side-note by writers of the time! As I said, I would have liked a little more criticism of today's version but thanks anyways for yout great content❤!
Some detail: al Ghafighi decided to launch due to the impending cold wet weather. His calvary mounts charged up to the plain where the Hammer was and fell due to being too exhausted.
to be fair roderic would have won at guadelete but the nobles stabbed him in the back cause they didnt like him love the fact that you call him charles martel and not charles "the hammer" martel like some channels do lol
No quality of a monarch is more important than inspiring the loyalty of subordinates and vassals. Roderic should have read Machiavelli before aspiring to the throne.
@@pietergeerkens6324 Rightly said, more often than not, the force that is more United/cohesive than the opponent tends to prevail. Similar for this battle, Muslim army was more loyal to the loot than to the army/command.
Charles the Hammer got so much credit in an oversimplified view of the overall campaign, but we owe more credit to Odo. The resolve and quick thinking of that man probably saved his people and the rest of France from Islamic subjugation.
So let me get this straight: something like 70,000 soldiers 40k vs. 20k engaged in a "fierce" battle lasting all day and through the evening but a "modern" revisionist history has determined the old stories of casualties were "exaggerated" and only 2500 total casualties were likely? 500 Franks....FIVE HUNDRED....and 2000 invaders died....I struggle to find a criticism that is not insulting...but your math is insulting enough. Rediculous!!!
