| " Contemporary Arab and Muslim historians and chroniclers were much more interested in the in 718, which ended in a disastrous defeat | After each side had tormented the other with raids for almost seven days, they finally prepared their battle lines and fought fiercely |
|---|---|
| He also makes an argument, after studying the Arab histories of the period, that these were clearly armies of invasion, sent by the Caliph not just to avenge Tours, but to begin the end of Christian Europe and bring it into the Caliphate | According to , both western and Muslim histories agree the battle was hard fought, and that the Umayyad heavy cavalry had broken into the square, but agreed that the Franks were in formation still strongly resisting |
Hanson, Victor Davis, 2001, p.
| The , a Latin contemporary source which describes the battle in greater detail than any other Latin or Arabic source, states that "the people of [the Frankish forces], greater in number of soldiers and formidably armed, killed the king, Abd ar-Rahman", which agrees with many Arab and Muslim historians | , by Professor , a professor of the Islamic history at Baghdad University, published in Dar Al-Qalam, in Damascus, and in Beirut |
|---|---|
| They had casualties before they fought the battle | According to , "The Arab historians, if they mention this engagement [the Battle of Tours] at all, present it as a minor skirmish," and writes: "This setback may have been important from the European point of view, but for Muslims at the time, who saw no master plan imperiled thereby, it had no further significance |
In Western history [ ] The first wave of real "modern" historians, especially scholars on Rome and the medieval period, such as , contended that had Charles fallen, the Umayyad Caliphate would have easily conquered a divided Europe.
29