Skip to comments.We Might be Muslim Today if...
Posted on 03/08/2013 4:30:50 AM PST by RoosterRedux
The year is 632 A.D., and Muslim hordes have set their sights on the Mideast and North Africa -- the old Christian world. And the Caliphate, as the Islamic realm is called, will not be denied. Syria and Iraq fall in 636. Palestine is next in 638. And Byzantine Egypt and North Africa, not even Arab lands, are conquered by 642 and 709, respectively. Then, just two years later, the Muslims cross the Strait of Gibraltar and enter Iberia (now Spain and Portugal). The invasion of Europe has begun.
And the new continent seems no impediment to Islam. After vanquishing much of Visigothic Iberia by 718, the Muslims cross the Pyrenees Mountains into Gaul (now France) and move northward. Now it is 732, and they are approaching Tours, a mere 126 miles from Paris. The Western world -- what's left of Christendom -- could very well be on its way to extinction.
Europe is currently easy prey, comprising disunited, often belligerent kingdoms and duchies recently decimated by plague. In contrast, the Islamic world is a burgeoning civilization; so much so, in fact, that it views the Europeans as barbarians. The Muslims also command enormous battle-hardened military forces and have enjoyed almost unparalleled breadth and rapidity of conquest, while Europe no longer has standing armies. It largely relies on peasants to do its fighting, men available only when crops aren't beckoning. Yet the Christian Europeans do have one great asset: Charles of Herstal, grandfather of Charlemagne.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
I would have also included the Battle of Lepanto in that list.
And perhaps the Battle of Vienna with Jan Sobieski at the helm
If the Knights Templar are truly the wealthy, secretive, thriving organization that the History Channel claims, then we might have a chance.
El Cid, Rodrigo Díaz de Vivar, captured Valencia in 1094. Although he fought for the Mohammedans while in exile, he returned to fight the Mohammedans at Valencia. I saw his tomb in the Burgos Cathedral. El Cid is the national hero of Spain.
We are not doomed yet, but we need a leader to unify us...and no one has stepped forward to claim that title.
The contributions of the Byzantines should not be overlooked. Even though Islamic expansion was possible through Byzantium’s exhaustion from incessant wars with the Persians, they retained enough strength to stop the Arabs in Asia Minor. Then, for 400+ years they remained a strong bulwark against the Moslem Arabs, Saracens, Persians and Turks, all while having to watch their backs in the Balkans.
This implies that Syria, Iraq and Palestine were Arab lands, which they were not at the time.
All three were inhabited by a very mixed population, many of whom were related to Arabs (as are the Jews), but they were certainly not Arab at their core.
If you behead your wife, rape goats and don't use toilet paper....You just might be a moslem.
lol...That’s what I thought the article was about when I first saw the title.
From the look of things, if the Knights Templar are so influential, they have devolved into the gay mafia. Must have resulted from spending too much time locked away with only men for company. :P
Westerners seem to overlook the significance of the sieges of Constantinople in 683 and 717, which were much more significant victories by Christians over Muslims than was the Battle of Tours. Also overlooked is the Battle of Kashgar in 736, in which the Chinese defeated Arab invaders and halted the eastward advance of Islam.
The siege of Vienna in 1529 and of Malta in 1565 might also be included.
It is relevant to point out that the limits of Muslim expansion reached at Tours, Vienna and Malta were to a considerable extent the consequence not so much of defeat in these battles as of shee distance.
Give the tech of the time, France was an enormous distance from the center of Muslim power in Syria/Iraq. With every mile the Muslims advanced their logistics became more difficult while that of their enemies, driven back onto their own centers of power, became easier.
Same thing was the most important single reason for the defeats of Charles XII, Napoleon and Hitler when they invaded Russia.
Amateurs talk battles, professionals study logistics.
A not inconsiderable additional factor at Tours was the coalition and freebooting nature of the Muslim invasion. When their accumulated booty, the reason they’d invaded in the first place, was threatened, soldiers began sneaking off to secure their loot, and the Muslim army fell apart.
I have heard about "Palestine".
Some say "Palestine" and some say there is no such place as "Palestine" and never has been.
Anyone know which is correct and definitive?
Oh, stop. While that may be true in part, the fact is that the Muslims greatly outnumbered the Christians at Tours and had cavalry where the Christians did not. The Muslims also went on to conquer most all of Iberia, and there’s no reason to think they could have done the same with Gaul.
Morocco is also a long way from Syria and Iraq, but the Muslims had no trouble holding it and turning it into a Muslim land.
Martel was a great military leader who employed brilliant tactics at Tours. This should not be downplayed.
I think that the area historically referred to as Palestine is actually Israel and/or the southern Levant.