Martel is killed at Tours

[EvanTurner594]

What would have happened if Charles Martel had been killed at Tours? Was the spread of Muslim faith truly unstoppable at that point? Was there another Western power that could check it? And what of the effect on the Carolingian Dynasty?

 

[Oracle of Sobek 𓆋]

Islam was far from unstoppable at that point. In fact, it was beginning to reach its limits. While admittedly, they didn't throw everything they had at the Franks during the Battle of Tours (which they regarded as an unimportant skirmish on behalf of a petty vassal), they were much more focused on consolidating their empire rather than expanding it further. Additionally, the Caliphate had been able to grow quickly because it had been conquering wealthy areas and revitalizing the local economies by paying its troops in plundered cash, which was then put right back into the system. Europe was much poorer than the lands they owned already, so conquest of the entire continent would not have been sustainable with the logistical system they used at the time.

A Muslim victory at Tours would probably just bring southern France/Aquitaine under Muslim rule at most. Think of it like a French al-Andalus. At the very least, they would just vassalize the offenders they had set out to punish and stick to ruling Spain. I suspect the Carolingian dynasty would be severely bruised, and we may see a temporary, perhaps even extended (or permanent) end to Frankish expansion.

 

[el t]

Martel

Islam was far from unstoppable at that point. In fact, it was beginning to reach its limits. While admittedly, they didn't throw everything they had at the Franks during the Battle of Tours (which they regarded as an unimportant skirmish on behalf of a petty vassal), they were much more focused on consolidating their empire rather than expanding it further. Additionally, the Caliphate had been able to grow quickly because it had been conquering wealthy areas and revitalizing the local economies by paying its troops in plundered cash, which was then put right back into the system. Europe was much poorer than the lands they owned already, so conquest of the entire continent would not have been sustainable with the logistical system they used at the time.

A Muslim victory at Tours would probably just bring southern France/Aquitaine under Muslim rule at most. Think of it like a French al-Andalus. At the very least, they would just vassalize the offenders they had set out to punish and stick to ruling Spain. I suspect the Carolingian dynasty would be severely bruised, and we may see a temporary, perhaps even extended (or permanent) end to Frankish expansion.

I agree. I don't see much motivation for the Muslim conquest of all of France.

 

[CandyDragon]

Is there even Muslim motivation to conquer any bit of France? I mean, there are more productive and easy places to attack- the Byzantines mainly. They're easy targets, tend toward chaos every once in a while, and are effectively stretched thin as it is.

Sicily, Crete, etc. would be far more productive places to conquer.

 

[Delvestius]

https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=219836

Click here for such a scenario.

 

[Pachac]

Is there even Muslim motivation to conquer any bit of France? I mean, there are more productive and easy places to attack- the Byzantines mainly. They're easy targets, tend toward chaos every once in a while, and are effectively stretched thin as it is.

Sicily, Crete, etc. would be far more productive places to conquer.

Southern France was a fairly rich area and would have been fairly hospitable to the Arabs, at least for a while. There was already a fairly long discussion on this at the link Delvestius posted. We'd probably get a Muslim southern France that would recede over the centuries and eventually fall to the Franks. Iberia, however, will be probably permanently in Muslim hands.

 

[CandyDragon]

Southern France was a fairly rich area and would have been fairly hospitable to the Arabs, at least for a while. There was already a fairly long discussion on this at the link Delvestius posted. We'd probably get a Muslim southern France that would recede over the centuries and eventually fall to the Franks. Iberia, however, will be probably permanently in Muslim hands.

Islamic Southern France I can see, at least in the modern departments of Languedoc/Rousillon, but I think there'd be more breakaway sooner, and the further this Western European Ibero-Catalan Muslim state gets from the Pyrenees, the more likely to fall it gets.

We're before the era of the Crusades, obviously, but I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say that Christian powers wouldn't be too keen on Islam making a presence in Francia, though I think the Franks themselves could probably mop it up, if there isn't too much of a crisis following the death of Charles Martel.

I think Pippin the Short was old enough to take the throne following the battle of Tours, but he would be fairly young, I believe.

The Carolingians would be weakened briefly, but I think they would emerge almost as strong as they were when Charlemagne came to power.

 

[Delvestius]

The Carolingians would be weakened briefly, but I think they would emerge almost as strong as they were when Charlemagne came to power.

No chance. Without Martel, the various Fiefs of the Frankish empire would seek independence, causing a breakdown of their power. The lombards are the only other significant Catholic entity at this time, and while ImmortalImpi and I have differing views on their position, I feel that it is mutually accepted that they would not have sufficient power to go on the offensive in Muslim-held lands.

 

[Pachac]

What other powers? The Lombards are vehemently opposed to any real help of the Franks, and they're the only ones worth a damn in the area. The Franks would seek to regain the area, yes, but they'll have massive issues for a while with the Vikings and it'll be likely that Carloman will take the throne instead of Charlemagne, considering access to the Pope and the monasteries of Italy will be cut off, and being a pious man, he would want to attack the Muslims. Considering he isn't that competent...

And the 'Carolingians' don't exist yet. We're talking about the mayors of Metz who were under de jure control of the Merovingians, who weren't deposed until Pippin.

And yeah, there will be a massive collapse of Frankish power if Charles dies.

 

[CandyDragon]

No chance. Without Martel, the various Fiefs of the Frankish empire would seek independence, causing a breakdown of their power. The lombards are the only other significant Catholic entity at this time, and while ImmortalImpi and I have differing views on their position, I feel that it is mutually accepted that they would not have sufficient power to go on the offensive in Muslim-held lands.

Before Tours, Martel had spent his reign increasing the power of the King significantly. By the time of the Battle of Tours, I think it's safe enough to say that though there may be further feudal development, the Franks are not going to collapse.

Nobles would definitely become more powerful, I completely agree, but I think that faced with such encroachment as this Ibero-Islamic state, they'd either throw their hands up in the air, surrender, and convert (well, after all, they are basically French ) or stick with other strong powers in the region.

Additionally, and this is just me being an ineffective mellow harsher... if you look at the size of the Caliphate at the time, it's whopping- why would they want to waste their strength unnecessarily (Not saying that they wouldn't be able to crush Europe with their full power) on conquering Europe?

They have bigger, richer, and fundamentally more fish to fry at home. Maybe if the siege of Constantinople goes really well, they'd be able to conquer further out of the Iberian peninsula, but I find it unlikely.

 

[Pachac]

Yeah, they're not going to conquer beyond the Loire-Burgundy boundary. There really isn't much for them.

 

[Delvestius]

Before Tours, Martel had spent his reign increasing the power of the King significantly. By the time of the Battle of Tours, I think it's safe enough to say that though there may be further feudal development, the Franks are not going to collapse.

Neh, it's pretty much done.

Nobles would definitely become more powerful, I completely agree, but I think that faced with such encroachment as this Ibero-Islamic state, they'd either throw their hands up in the air, surrender, and convert (well, after all, they are basically French ) or stick with other strong powers in the region.

Wut strong power lol. The only strong power is the united Frankish Empir- oh wait...

Additionally, and this is just me being an ineffective mellow harsher... if you look at the size of the Caliphate at the time, it's whopping- why would they want to waste their strength unnecessarily (Not saying that they wouldn't be able to crush Europe with their full power) on conquering Europe?

Where else was there for them to conquer? Arabs were encroaching in Persia and Punjab by now... Europe was the only thing left, because they new Byzantium was out of their reach. If Tours was won, I can definitely foresee a greater push inland.

They have bigger, richer, and fundamentally more fish to fry at home. Maybe if the siege of Constantinople goes really well, they'd be able to conquer further out of the Iberian peninsula, but I find it unlikely.

Again, there would be no siege. France was their best shot.

 

[CandyDragon]

Where else was there for them to conquer? Arabs were encroaching in Persia and Punjab by now... Europe was the only thing left, because they new Byzantium was out of their reach. If Tours was won, I can definitely foresee a greater push inland.
...
Again, there would be no siege. France was their best shot.

The Second Siege of Constantinople could have gone significantly better. If the Bulgarians didn't decide to join the Byzantines, and they hadn't been especially amicable until about the year before, than the Arab siege would have gone better. There would have been the atrocious weather (understatement) which would have definitely caused casualities, but if there was no Bulgaro-Roman alliance to attack the Arab encampments from both sides, they could have pulled it off.

The Byzantines weren't unshakeable- they were surviving by the skin of their teeth at that point.

 

[Delvestius]

The Second Siege of Constantinople could have gone significantly better. If the Bulgarians didn't decide to join the Byzantines, and they hadn't been especially amicable until about the year before, than the Arab siege would have gone better. There would have been the atrocious weather (understatement) which would have definitely caused casualities, but if there was no Bulgaro-Roman alliance to attack the Arab encampments from both sides, they could have pulled it off.

This is not the POD; As it stands, the Arabs would not take Antolia. Besides, even without the Bulgarians, then yes the Arabs may take Antolia, but in no way would they be able to cross the Bosphorus.

The Byzantines weren't unshakeable- they were surviving by the skin of their teeth at that point.

Are you kidding? Byzantium was the most powerful European state at this point. Call me in 1300, then I will agree.

 

[Pachac]

Yeah, Byzantium wasn't going to fall in 717, and that was the last chance pretty much.

 

[CandyDragon]

Byzantium was the most powerful European state at this point. Call me in 1300, then I will agree.

It was the richest definitely. I don't know about being most powerful at this point- they had fallen very far, very fast.

 

[Delvestius]

It was the richest definitely. I don't know about being most powerful at this point- they had fallen very far, very fast.

Name one European group that could challenge them. And I feel you're not giving them enough credit... They are not in as much of a suckass position at this point as you think.

 

[LSCatilina]

Martel is killed?

1)The Hugonids take the power. Charles have battled them and managed to won, but with his death, they took power of Austrasia quickly and probably Neustria as well as the merovingian kings let only one avaible heir.

After that, as the Hugonids are one of the most wealthiest families of Austrasia, far from muslims piracy, they do the same as the OTL Carolingians : they take control of north-western Europe.

Maybe they could be less interested on the western and south-western part of Frankish Kingdom that are already independent de facto, but regarding their economical and geographical position, they're likely to take control of Saxe, Bavaria, Carinthia and Lombardia.

It could be more hard to do, critically if the alliance between Bavaria and Aquitania is completed by the lombard Italy, but it's quite unlikely.

As the pope need support that Byzance is unable to give at this time, and as Franks are the only people avaible to do so...

2)Aquitaine is probably let to itself. The Odonids could keep control of the main parts, but subject to many Islamics raids that can reach more deep positions. At the end, it depends on who conquers Narbona.
If the Aquitains did it, they can stay a secondary power in Christian Europe, having an interesting possibility on conquering hold on the other side of Pyrenées, allowing to make a Basque/Occitan state.

If the Franks conquers Narbona (it's mandatory, they can't allow Islamic raids to reach the center of Gaul), the same than OTL for Gothia/Septimania and Catalonia. Aquitaine would enter very likely in Frankish sphere of influence.

Narbona can't stay in Islamic hands, because the number of muslims are too few to hold the land. Septimania was OTL totally exemplt of Islamic garrision except for this city and the troubles in Al-Andalus make a re-conquering expedition totally absurd and with little chance of sucess.

3)Finally, nothing change for the Muslims. They couldn't conquer souther Gaul because not enough soldiers or men. The only tentative of conquering places north of Narbonne, in 721, failed.
And, regarding how much issues keeping Narbonne when all the Septimania was hold by technically submited goths...a Muslim Aquitaine or Provence is totally ASB with this POD

 

[Delvestius]

1)The Hugonids take the power. Charles have battled them and managed to won, but with his death, they took power of Austrasia quickly and probably Neustria as well as the merovingian kings let only one avaible heir.

After that, as the Hugonids are one of the most wealthiest families of Austrasia, far from muslims piracy, they do the same as the OTL Carolingians : they take control of north-western Europe.

I doubt such an occurrence is likely. Even if the Hugonids take power, Frankland would be such a fuedal mess that such a swift consolidation is unlikely.

It could be more hard to do, critically if the alliance between Bavaria and Aquitania is completed by the lombard Italy, but it's quite unlikely.

Right.

Point two is dependent on the soundness of point one, and your point one is shifty at best.

3)Finally, nothing change for the Muslims. They couldn't conquer souther Gaul because not enough soldiers or men. The only tentative of conquering places north of Narbonne, in 721, failed.

There was much more at stake in 732 than 721...

And, regarding how much issues keeping Narbonne when all the Septimania was hold by technically submited goths...a Muslim Aquitaine or Provence is totally ASB with this POD

It's really not. Your basing your assumptions on ties and opportunities that aren't present to the Franks at this time. A decisive Muslim victory would mean a foothold in southern France indefinitely. At this point, it's a race who can convert the Germans first. The Franks will not risk such a military campaign with hostile and quite frankly (lol wordplay) more powerful and experienced forces to the south. The lombards are pretty much out of the equation as well.

 

[LSCatilina]

I doubt such an occurrence is likely. Even if the Hugonids take power, Frankland would be such a fuedal mess that such a swift consolidation is unlikely.

Francia was not feudal mess, because of the absence of feudal system. The Hugonids and Peppinids were closely related, and with the disapprence of the last great Peppinid figure, they will "inherit" of the ties with others families and more importantly, of the great gallic domains.

These domains, unreachable for Muslims raids, are enough to use the gift-based microeconomy and to control really quickly all the Austrasia.
Theire issues would be (in order of importance) 1)Neustria, 2)Bavaria 3)Alemania.

For Neustria, they have a choice.
-Allow Aquitaine to remain independent, at last for a time, and to recognize them the royal title that the Neustrian gave them in 717. It's dangerous to make a state that have a real support of nobility and a relative stability, but it would allow to take control of the weak Neustria in two years.
OR
-Attack Neustria, no matter the Aquitain help. As they will be busy with the Muslims and more weak (the 732 raid was all about Aquitaine that was ravaged). It's a non negligable chance to end all of this quickly. But they'll be forced to deal sooner or later with Aquitaine as Charles Martel did OTL.

For Bavaria, it's quite difficult. After all the duke in place was tied with Pippinids, and more or less put in charge by them. Bavarians nobles could be tempted to have since 732 an independent existence (they tried to do so OTL). They're not really dangerous, but the traditional Aquitain-Bavarian alliance is, because it forces Franks to deal with two fronts at every war.

So, or they manage to buy Bavarian nobles enough to settle a new tie, or they strike right after the first tentative of autonomy. Again, a harshly weakened Aquitaine which have to deal with Muslims is a bonus.

Alemania is quite supportive of Hugonids, but it would cost more protection and more efforts that Pippinids give OTL. It would maybe force Austrasians to let some western possessions slowly shift from Frankish Kingdom (Brittany, North Aquitaine).

Regarding Provence, it's more complicated. They have claims to intervene, and they could be called by some patrices in opposition with Abbon (critically if they reinstate a merovingian king). It would be a real bonus to take Septimania. But except that, it's not a great deal to take this land, when they can took Frisia which was as rich, and not at all regularly subject to Islamic raids and piracy.

Point two is dependent on the soundness of point one, and your point one is shifty at best.

I suppose you used the word for "evasive"? I would be interested to see your points about why Austrasians nobles wouldn't follow the Hugonids if they manage to hold their domains + the ones of Pippinids.

There was much more at stake in 732 than 721...

No.
The 721 was a conquering expedition with infantry, war machines for sieges, families.
Not only 732 was only a raid campaign, not discernable from 725 one that reached Autun, but the only battles that are sourced by more than two islamic scholars are Toulouse and Narbonne.

The numbers given for the Battle of Poitiers are totally imaginary, given centuries after the Battle (the chronicles of the VIII don't mention any number, and hardly mention the battle if you except the chronicles payed by Peppinids and Carolingians).

Why Toulouse and Narbonne are more present in Islamic sources? Because they were real defeats that stopped Islamic progress in Europe.

The Battle of Toulouse was the point where Muslims stopped to plan conquest north of Spain (no one more was made) and the loss of Narbonne meant that they won't be able to make raids in Gaul that provided them many richess.

It's really not. Your basing your assumptions on ties and opportunities that aren't present to the Franks at this time.

Which ones?

A decisive Muslim victory would mean a foothold in southern France indefinitely.

Muslims don't have the forces to do so. North of Pyrenées in 731, there's only the garrison of Narbonne/Arbuna.
In the iberic peninsula you have at maximum 4,000 Arabs, 15,000 Berbers.
It's okay for keeping control of a region which have hardly 3 millions inhabitants, but not for a region (southern Gaul) which host the majority of the 8 millions of inhabitants the Gaul had.

I repeat, and it's sourced everywere, except Narbonne, all the land under Islamic rule was directly ruled by Christians and because of that, conquest of Septimania, except Narbonne, was a wealthy promenade for Franks OTL.

At this point, it's a race who can convert the Germans first.

Massive conversions in Muslim Spain didn't happened before the second part of IX and when it happened, it touched mainly the south, while the North hosted a majoritary Christian population.
By taking -again- the exemple of Septimania, it's no trace of an important noble that converted himself (at the contrary of Spain, when you can find the Banu Qasi by exemple). Even Ardo (who was probably the last king of Goths, only under Islamic rule) didn't converted.

Furthermore the massive conversion movment in Spain first concerned the slaves that were more present in Visigothic Spain than everywhere in Western Europe.

The Franks will not risk such a military campaign with hostile and quite frankly (lol wordplay) more powerful and experienced forces to the south. The lombards are pretty much out of the equation as well.

Frankish warriors are really experienced. Not only they manage to conquer Frisa (that are hardly the barbarians described in the chronicles, at the contrary), but they developped new techniques that allowed them to beat the light cavalry of the Gascons and at Poitiers OTL, the Islamic cavalry.
Heavy cavalry and mounted infantry are present since this period.

More powerful? Muslims in Spain were totally divided and a state of civil war will last until Abd al Rahman I in 750's, and even there, many Muslims wouldn't recognize his rule.
Muslims were divided, beaten many times (Toulouse, but not only) and Franks are totally able to do that, as they did OTL. A single battle and the death of Charles Martel is not going to change that.