[intro music] (host) What if Islamic armies in the 8th century AD?

'Cause it could have happened, and the world today would most certainly look a lot different.

Since the Middle Ages, European history and Christianity have been so intertwined, you often can't talk about one without talking about the other.

But, like almost everything in history, it didn't have to turn out this way.

In fact, if a battle in the early 700s had turned out differently, there was a very decent chance that Islam could have had a much larger influence on European identity and history.

And today, we want to look at how the history of the world really could have been different if the Battle of Tours had taken a different turn.

So, some of you may be familiar with the Battle of Tours in 732 AD, and some of you not so much.

Just to give a quick rundown-- the Battle of Tours was fought in October of 732 AD.

The Franks, led by Charles Martel, eventually defeated the army of the Spanish Moors, led by Abd al-Rahman.

The battle is still considered significant today as much for the cultural impact of the outcome as the events that occurred.

Charles Martel was a Frankish ruler who was also a champion of Christianity.

He founded the Carolingian Dynasty and his famous descendants, notably Charlemagne, went on to expand the regional and global reach of Christianity, especially in Western Europe.

On the other hand, Abd al-Rahman, leader of the army of the Spanish Moors, was an adherent of Islam.

His army had conquered various regions in Europe and was looking to expand their influence before he locked horns with Charles Martel in 732.

Some historians theorize that, if the battle had been reversed, the Spanish Moors army could have gone on to continue its pattern of military success in Europe.

So, in light of the fact that the Frankish kingdom was one of the larger unified kingdoms of Europe at the time, it's very possible the expansion of Islamic armies would continue east, thus turning the tides for countries that were later influenced by Charles Martel's spread of Christianity in favor of Islam.

So, since this alternate historical outcome would have proven influential in the development of our timeline, I wanted to ask today: What could have caused Charles Martel and the Frankish armies to lose at the Battle of Tours?

So, even though this portion of the episode is not--I repeat, not-- actual history, I wanted to envision a scenario where Charles Martel's forces were defeated by Abd al-Rahman.

In this case, I dug into the facts, and some sources expressed surprise that Charles was actually successful considering his Frankish forces were pretty outnumbered on the battlefield.

When Abd al-Rahman's forces encountered the Frankish army, they were slowly moving eastward through Europe from Spain and were coming off a series of successful battles.

Also, the Battle of Tours was only about 100 years after the death of the prophet Muhammad and the founding of Islam.

The Spanish Moors army was strong and well-organized, whereas many of the European kingdoms and rulers they were encountering were suffering from infighting and power struggles of their own, making them more easily conquered during the invasions.

However, there's something important to keep in mind about Charles Martel, AKA Charles "the Hammer."

They didn't give him that name because he was a great blacksmith or secretly a WWE wrester.

Nope, he was known for his military strategy and prowess.

Charles Martel was the illegitimate son of Pepin, who was the mayor of the Palace of Austrasia and de facto ruler of the Frankish kingdom.

When Pepin died in 714 without any legitimate heirs, Charles beat out Pepin's grandsons to take over his father's domain.

Pepin had appointed his eight- year-old grandson Theudoald as his legitimate heir, but Charles opposed this decision, and, as a result, he waged three years of civil war from 715 to 718, gathering men and building up his strategies to take over his father's kingdom.

He was ultimately successful in his bid for power and took over as leader of the Franks instead of his young nephew.

The whole thing was like a very early francophone "Game of Thrones."

So, it's reasonable to say that the fight for the crown prepared Charles for the Battle of Tours when he had to struggle against an incoming enemy, but if our old friend the Hammer hadn't been successful in his bid for power, then when Abd al-Rahman arrived in Tours in 732, he would most likely be encountering a young, less-experienced ruler rather than a guy who knew his way around rallying an army, seizing control, and ultimately had larger dynastic plans.

Also, his whole campaign of rallying soldiers and unifying his people would not have been necessary if Charles Martel had just walked into the throne or never made it to the throne at all.

So, in this timeline, it's not exactly hard to imagine that, instead of Abd al-Rahman being killed during the ensuing fray and the surprising defeat of his army, Charles is the one that is defeated and killed while Abd al-Rahman and his army continue their route further into Europe.

So, that brings us to our next question: What would happen if Abd al-Rahman's army had been successful at the Battle of Tours?

And how could things be different today?

First difference-- no Carolingian Dynasty.

In a world without Charles Martel's victory, the would-be Carolingian Dynasty wouldn't have flourished and become the major powerhouse of Western Europe.

And some of Charles' descendants were directly responsible for the shift of Western Europe from a collection of warring mini kingdoms to a more unified front.

The most obvious one in this early lineage is Charlemagne, because, when it comes to waging war, it seems like that definitely runs in the blood.

Charlemagne successfully led and won over 50 battles and unified Western Europe as the First Holy Roman Emperor in 300 years.

So, without a successful Charles, there would likely be no continuation of unified Frankish rule, spread of Christianity, or further unification of Western Europe.

And as an important Butterfly Effect, in 911, the Carolingian ruler, Charles the Simple, allowed a group of Vikings to settle in Normandy as part of a treaty.

This lineage then led to William the Conqueror and the Norman invasion of England.

So, if Charles had lost the Battle of Tours, England, Scotland, and Ireland also could have ended up with a very different history.

Second difference: a different colonial trajectory.

So, without the Carolingian Dynasty, and had Abd al-Rahman's army continued their patterns of success, this could have marked a seismic shift in Western Europe during the Middle Ages, especially for countries like Spain, France, and England.

And since those countries would later go on to wage their own wars to spread the Christian faith around the world and eventually segue into becoming major colonial powers hundreds of years later, this timeline could have had a larger global impact because circumstances for the run-up to what would become Western European colonialism-- the unification of kingdoms with long-term dynastic clout, backed by the wealth and might of the church and an ability or urge to develop larger empires-- would no longer exist.

And the maps and allegiances that we're all familiar with would have been very different.

Not that the world would have been free from conflict had the Islamic army's success been prolonged, but rather the objectives of these advancements would have been altered.

Third difference: a different Renaissance.

Another significant change is that the so-called Dark Ages, or the early Middle Ages, might not have been considered, well, so dim.

Italian scholar Petrarch coined the term "Dark Ages" because he believed that there was a lull in societal advancements in Europe after the fall of the Roman Empire and before the dawn of that swinging period that we all now know as the Renaissance.

But his viewpoint that the early Middle Ages were devoid of culture wasn't entirely accurate because during the span of European history from approximately 500 to 1000 AD, there was a parallel Golden Age in Islamic arts, technology, and sciences from 700 AD into the 13th century.

For example, paper spread from China into Muslim regions in the 8th century before arriving in present-day Spain in the 10th century.

This paper was far sturdier than parchment, and Islamic papermakers devised assembly-line methods of hand-copying manuscripts to turn out editions far larger than any available in Europe for centuries.

So, had this advancement come to more parts of Europe, more knowledge could have spread faster.

Also, Arabic philosophers played a critical role in saving the works of Aristotle whose ideas were crucial to the European Renaissance.

And, according the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, translation of philosophical texts from Arabic to Latin led the transformation of almost all philosophical disciplines in the Medieval Latin world.

There were also major advancements in algebra, physics, and astronomy that occurred across the Muslim world.

So, if the Battle of Tours had gone in a different direction, and had the Muslim world had greater communication with Europe via an expanded empire, these advancements that eventually found a foothold in Europe could have been significantly changed, and they could have potentially happened a lot sooner.

Accessibility provided by the U.S. Department of Education.

[closing music]