Talk:Battle of Toulouse (721)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 02:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Balat al-Suhada and sources
Hi, I should not be very trustful of a general dictionary on Islam that referes to al-Shuhada exclusively as the Battle of Poitiers. In a more close-up approach, Collins calls into question the magnitude of this battle, very conveniently magnified/mytified by Carolingian chronicles and Western academia.

As Collins notes, contemporary chronicles assign to the Battle of Toulouse same or more relevance than that of Poitiers. He also reminds that later Arabic chronicles often drew from or copied Western accounts. I cannot rate the reliability of the Saudi Arauco paper, but I do not know why I should hold it as questionable. The author is actually very down-to-earth and calls into question decades-long dualistic approaches we have gone through for ages. Iñaki LL (talk) 20:50, 31 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Coppée is a French poet and playwright and is not a reliable source for history. David Levering Lewis does state that Muslims refer to both battles(Toulouse & Poitiers) as Balat al-Shuhada. I would accept that as a source. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:37, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * AND, The Encyclopaedia of Islam is written, edited and reviewed by academics that specialize in the field of Islam/Islamic Studies. That particular article is written by Robert Gleave, professor of Arabic Studies and Director of the Centre for the Study of Islam (CSI), IAIS, University of Exeter.
 * Who is this "Collins" you are mentioning? There is no Collins listed in the article sources. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:57, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * And the other source is by Ian Meadows, veteran journalist and author, lives in Languedoc, France, where he is working on a historical novel set during the Crusades in Palestine and Occitania. Hardly a reliable source for this article. --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:22, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Collins is Roger Collins, see The Arab Conquest of Spain 710-797 and Caliphs and Kings. I cannot judge Robert Gleave's work, I guess he is following the academic tradition so far, and not any specific research into the term. As I pointed, a more comprehensive approach by Collins points to later Arab chronicles copying Western ones, e.g. Asturian accounts of the late 9th century and afterwards. The Battle of Toulouse seems to be more important, although that can hardly be gauged. The contemporary Mozarabic Chronicler of 754 cites both, and he emphasizes the dimensions of the Toulouse defeat. I guess Ian Meadow draws on documents or accounts that contradict the official version, not very convenient to the triumphant Carolingian dynasty and later France's historiography. Iñaki LL (talk) 13:04, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you provide the page number(s) where Collins mentions Balat al-Shuhada? --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:13, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Collins does not cite any Balat al-Shuhada, he cites that the Battle of Toulouse was disastrous, that both contemporary sources the Chronicler of 741 and 754 concide in that, and it is also the last entry for the Chronicler of 741, page 54 in The Arab Conquest of Spain 710-797; he also suggests that the Battle of Poitiers ("Tours") has been exaggerated ("can be exaggerated", page 89). If we are strict with the text in Robert Gleave, he does not even speak of Odo's important rol in the Battle of Poitiers, in charge of one of the wings of Charles' army and according to other chroniclers (Chronicle of Moissac?, would have to check the exact source) the one that killed Abd al-Rahman. Gleave also talks of "Charles Martel" with no nuance; at that point there was no "Martel" whatsover, it was added in later chronicles. It all looks like the snowball that grows over time. If you really feel strong about it, change it, I will still think it is inaccurate, for the reasons described. Iñaki LL (talk) 21:10, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * First off, I was using Gleave to show what Balat al-Shuhada was referring to, not as a comparison of Poitiers to Toulouse.
 * "he[Collins] cites that the Battle of Toulouse was disastrous"
 * Ok.
 * "'he[Collins] also suggests that the Battle of Poitiers ("Tours") has been exaggerated"
 * Exaggerated in what way?
 * As for the historiographical comparison of Poitiers vs Toulouse, I believe you have shown Collins' outlook and that should replace the current paragraph. --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:12, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * No, what I am trying to say is that the perception contemporary chronicles had, as well as the Arabs, if you accept Meadows, is that Toulouse was the most disastrous battle, but later chronicles have pumped up the Poitiers battle account according to their political needs. So I should not believe they called it exclusively Balat al-Shuhada, which seems to be a generic term applied to a specific event by later chronicles. Iñaki LL (talk) 08:53, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, I do not believe we should use the opinion of a journalist(Meadows) to represent the historiography of these battles. It would appear we need to find more sources and use them along with Collins. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:28, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I would not say it is an opinion, it is a piece of information provided by a journalist and writer. I stick to the initial spirit of Wikipedia, I think too strict interpretation of rules, which could be tantamount to gaming the system, can actually smother the principle of freely sharing up-to-date information. If we stuck to the strict academic principle, often based in 20th century papers, we would be talking of the Battle of Tours that never took place in Tours, the Saracens attacking Roldan in 778, and the WP stating that Santiago Matamoros appeared to the troops in the Battle of Clavijo. We invariably talk of Charles "Martel", which I do not object, but it is used without nuance; he was never "Martel" during his life.
 * That said, the more the sources and the most academic, the better. Meanwhile I have added a compromise wording to accommodate the views on the matter. Iñaki LL (talk) 10:09, 3 February 2018 (UTC)


 * In Brill's Encyclopaedia of Islam, there is an article on Balāṭ al- Sh uhadāʾ by Henri Pérès. He does not mention Toulouse. He notes that Ibn ʿIdhārī dates it to AH 115 and not 114. He cites the A kh bār ma dj mūʿa, which I checked. It mentions ʿAbd al-Raḥmān dying at the balāṭ al- sh uhadāʾ, which James translates "field of martyrs". The meaning of balāṭ also affects the possible location of the battle, since if it is a rendering of Latin platea (road) then it suggests the battle of Poitiers/Tours, which took place by the Roman road. This has been the dominant interpretation. Srnec (talk) 18:37, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I will stick to what I said above, and I think the present wording is balanced enough. Collins notes that later Islamic chronicles drew on Asturian (and possibly Carolingian) chronicles. Balat seems to refer to the Bordeaux - Narbonne road, the one used by the troops to retreat in disarray after the defeat of Toulouse, and also after Poitiers. Iñaki LL (talk) 22:21, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

losses
Losses seem exaggerated. 375,000 is an imaginary number. The number of soldiers who crossed with Tariq ibn Ziyad into Andalusia did not exceed 3000, and the number may rise to 20,000 when the whole of Iberia is conquered. Jubaco (talk) 16:54, 2 October 2020 (UTC)


 * This coming from the user that just added 1,000,000 gays killed. Sounds like you are not here to build an encyclopedia. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:41, 2 October 2020 (UTC)