• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

10/10 Anniversary of the Battle of Tours

Should the French have defended themselves against the Moor invaders at Tours?

  • Oui

    Votes: 7 100.0%
  • non

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    7

Spiderman

Veteran Member
"At the Battle of Tours near Poitiers, France, Frankish leader Charles Martel, a Christian, defeats a large army of Spanish Moors, halting the Muslim advance into Western Europe. Abd-ar-Rahman, the Muslim governor of Cordoba, was killed in the fighting, and the Moors retreated from Gaul, never to return in such force.

Charles was the illegitimate son of Pepin, the powerful mayor of the palace of Austrasia and effective ruler of the Frankish kingdom. After Pepin died in 714 (with no surviving legitimate sons), Charles beat out Pepin’s three grandsons in a power struggle and became mayor of the Franks. He expanded the Frankish territory under his control and in 732 repulsed an onslaught by the Muslims.

Victory at Tours ensured the ruling dynasty of Martel’s family, the Carolingians. His son Pepin became the first Carolingian king of the Franks, and his grandson Charlemagne carved out a vast empire that stretched across Europe"
Battle of Tours

The debate is. Do you think the French should have defended themselves against the Islamic invaders or give France to the Moors to make France a Muslim country?

Many Historians believe that had Charles failed, no power in Europe would have been able to halt Islamic expansion.

In the Poll , answer the Oui (Yes in French) or non (No).

I didn't list an "Other" option, because I prefer you simply click the one you most lean towards,
even if it isn't exactly Oui or non.

Give your explanation for why or why not the French should or should not have defended themselves.

Also, Moors attacked Spain, and Spain fought over 500 years of war against the Moors on Spanish soil to get their country back. The Moors, like the Ottoman Empire, wanted to conquer Europe and make Europe a Muslim Continent. Should Europeans defend themselves or let themselves be conquered by Moors or the Ottoman Empire.

Thank you!

bonne journée

que Dieu te bénisse! :)

france-map-with-french-flag-prints.jpg
1.jpg
download.jpg
 

Spiderman

Veteran Member
Just a silly irrelevant fact.

There are currently three votes on the poll and the "Historical debates" section says this thread only has one view currently. :confused::p
 

Lain

Well-Known Member
The debate is. Do you think the French should have defended themselves against the Islamic invaders or give France to the Moors to make France a Muslim country?

From all I can see about it currently it was a just defense of their nation, and as self-defense is part of the duties of a leader for their people, so I don't think it would've been righteous at all for them to just do nothing about this. They should've defended themselves.
 

Spiderman

Veteran Member
From all I can see about it currently it was a just defense of their nation, and as self-defense is part of the duties of a leader for their people, so I don't think it would've been righteous at all for them to just do nothing about this. They should've defended themselves.

Is it okay to celebrate victories like this?

Like, the feast of "Our Lady of the Rosary" and "Our Lady of victories" is on October 7th, because victory at Lepanto is attributed to the intercession of the Virgin Mary and the Rosary. It is a great celebration in the Catholic Church.

Should we celebrate a bunch of people getting killed? Why or why not?
 

Spiderman

Veteran Member
In the battle of Tours, some estimates say that 12 Moors died for every 1 Christian, and that it was miraculous.
 
Like, the feast of "Our Lady of the Rosary" and "Our Lady of victories" is on October 7th, because victory at Lepanto is attributed to the intercession of the Virgin Mary and the Rosary. It is a great celebration in the Catholic Church.

The "intercession of Mary" miraculously enabled the victory of the navy who had better utilised new technology and thus outgunned the Ottomans with more plentiful and more powerful canons and firearms? :openmouth:
 

Spiderman

Veteran Member
The "intercession of Mary" miraculously enabled the victory of the navy who had better utilised new technology and thus outgunned the Ottomans with more plentiful and more powerful canons and firearms? :openmouth:

I don't know what sources you have been reading but many sources state that the Ottomans had been practically unstoppable on the battlefield prior to Lepanto and in fact had a better Navy. The wind shifted in favor of the Christian Navy at the right time as well, according to what I read. But I wasn't there.
 

Rival

Si m'ait Dieus
Staff member
Premium Member
The "intercession of Mary" miraculously enabled the victory of the navy who had better utilised new technology and thus outgunned the Ottomans with more plentiful and more powerful canons and firearms? :openmouth:
As a perpetual virgin, I guess she hasn't much else do to? :shrug:
 

Lain

Well-Known Member
Is it okay to celebrate victories like this?

Like, the feast of "Our Lady of the Rosary" and "Our Lady of victories" is on October 7th, because victory at Lepanto is attributed to the intercession of the Virgin Mary and the Rosary. It is a great celebration in the Catholic Church.

Should we celebrate a bunch of people getting killed? Why or why not?

In Scripture it says "God did not make death," and death is never willed or rejoiced in for it's own sake, but instead other things are celebrated in these events: the preservation of a nation, the prevailing of justice, the aversion of other evils, and so on. These things even though present with death can be rejoiced in, but death in itself is never to be celebrated, or any other calamity or evil.
 
I don't know what sources you have been reading but many sources state that the Ottomans had been practically unstoppable on the battlefield prior to Lepanto and in fact had a better Navy. The wind shifted in favor of the Christian Navy at the right time as well, according to what I read. But I wasn't there.

They were in boats powered by rowers, not sailing boats beholden to the wind.

It was the last major sea battle powered by oars before sail came to dominate, along with vastly increased firepower that became possible due to boat and canon technology.

The ottoman's were slow to adapt and that's why they lost.
 

Spiderman

Veteran Member
They were in boats powered by rowers, not sailing boats beholden to the wind.

It was the last major sea battle powered by oars before sail came to dominate, along with vastly increased firepower that became possible due to boat and canon technology.

The ottoman's were slow to adapt and that's why they lost.

I was aware of the oars because many galley slaves who were using oars were released from captivity that day.

You don't see a shift in wind to still possibly assist a side in such a battle? I could certainly see it as having potential in a naval battle, if it was a severe wind.

I'll try and trust your credibility, but the sources I read said that the Ottoman Empire was more powerful and had a better navy.

I will do some more research ( from a non Catholic source of course)
 

Spiderman

Veteran Member
The “ouis” have it.

By a pretty decent margin.

Should we have a recount?
Ouji Ouiji Ouji! :p.

Anyway,.

Many people think you can't kill people, and the Frank's, Spanish, and other Europeans, had to kill countless thousands in conflicts with Muslims that lasted centuries.

The Spanish were fighting Islamic aggression on Spanish soil for over 500 years before kicking them out.

Is killing thousands and thousands of Muslims (Islam is a Religion of peace) , and crusades against them, justified, under those circumstances?
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
Is killing thousands and thousands of Muslims (Islam is a Religion of peace) , and crusades against them, justified, under those circumstances?
Yes... at that time, there were espousing war and world dominance.

Interestingly enough, so much propaganda has been given about "the Crusade" that people tend to miss the bigger picture:

Jihad vs Crusades - Political Islam

Start at 1:18 minutes
 
You don't see a shift in wind to still possibly assist a side in such a battle? I could certainly see it as having potential in a naval battle, if it was a severe wind.

Less so than having significantly greater firepower on better ships :D

I'll try and trust your credibility, but the sources I read said that the Ottoman Empire was more powerful and had a better navy.

Not by that point. Technological advances can change the balance of power significantly.
 

Jeremiah Ames

Well-Known Member
Ouji Ouiji Ouji! :p.

Anyway,.

Many people think you can't kill people, and the Frank's, Spanish, and other Europeans, had to kill countless thousands in conflicts with Muslims that lasted centuries.

The Spanish were fighting Islamic aggression on Spanish soil for over 500 years before kicking them out.

Is killing thousands and thousands of Muslims (Islam is a Religion of peace) , and crusades against them, justified, under those circumstances?
Not in my opinion, unless they were hostile and attacked first.
 
Top