Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Macrohistorical battles tied to the existence of European civilisation

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus --BigDT 05:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Macrohistorical battles tied to the existence of European civilisation

Macrohistorical battles tied to the existence of European civilisation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Original research and POV. To the very least there is a problem of respect of Naming Conventions. Note that the article was created by a Single purpose account (User contributions). PS: At best, merge content into History of Europe. Tazmaniacs 18:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment - the article does smack of original research, and the selected list may be just opinion, but if the information can be substantiated with reliable sources, then the article might be a keeper. I've tagged it as unreferenced -- Whpq 19:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - this looks like a good article, but it needs to cite its sources. Also, 'macrohistorical battles' is a contradiction in terms, so it needs renaming. AlexTiefling 19:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research per nom. Some historians place specific great importance on some of these battles, largely for contemporary reasons -- e.g. as a "macrohistorical" battle between Western and non-Western civilizations. There is no historical consensus that these battles were important in that sense. Certainly there is very little support for the idea that Thermopylae (between Greeks and Persians) can easily be shoehorned into a precursor of the Crusades and Christian-Muslim conflict. --Dhartung | Talk 19:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to spoil your illusion, but the Europeans have always used the fight against the Eastern civilizations as part of their cultural identity, not only against Muslims but against anything that came from the East since Roman times. Sometimes even defeats (such as Kosovo_Polje) are used to form national identity, while wars amongst the Europeans themselves are mostly regarded as tragedies Alf photoman 23:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My "illusion"? Alf photoman, please assume good faith and try not to get inside my head. How many Europeans identify with Thermopylae (Greeks and Victor Davis Hanson excepted)? --Dhartung | Talk 23:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am assuming good faith, and by the way the Greeks don't identify with Thermopylae, Macedonians sure do. But in central Europe the battle of Vienna is the great focal point of cultural identity, for the Balkans it is Kosovo Polje, for the French Poitiers and each of these battles were against Muslims. The great heroes such as Roldan, El Cid, Prinz Eugen and about a million more were always in battle against the Moors or Turks in popular culture, even though historically the reality is much more diverse ( El Cid for example had a better relationship with the Moorish rulers than with the Christian kings) . I think it is time to overcome this, but without understanding it Europeans never will Alf photoman 00:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
sorry, but I happen to be a citizen of one of the nation you mentioned, and I absolutely disagree with you, and so do several millions of my fellow citizens. Please don't speak in the name of others people, and keep your anti-Muslim conceptions to a political forum. Tazmaniacs 00:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
sorry but I fail to see how you can claim that my criticism of certain European identities formed in battles against Muslims is anti-Muslim, or is it that you need to be attacked? Alf photoman 00:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Bad faith nomination. The edit history shows the author is still working on the document and may be adding sources soon. The document is only about a month old. I do not see any attempt at talk or otherwise to get the author to provide sources. Unreferenced tag was added AFTER the AFD nomination. This nomination is rediculous to say the least and is biting of the head of a new contributor. I don't see any evidence provided to show that there is a big POV or OR.--Dacium 21:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why do you say it is a bad faith nomination? Recury 21:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The nominator never gave the author a change to supply the sources. Never tried to tag as un sourced. Makes claims about POV and OR without any real evidance. We should assume good faith, in that the author will provide the necessary sources eventually, say after the article has been tagged for a few months. Not while it still being written! The nominator also assumes it is a single purpose account, clearly this is not 'good faith' to a new user, but a clear attack upon him.--Dacium 03:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Notwithstanding the definition of single purpose account, you have to admit that this account has not done any other editing on Wikipedia. This does not prejudge of the future. I have "never gave the author a change (sic) to supply sources" for the simple reason that there is a very big Naming Conventions and Naming conflict on such an article. Its title itself makes it inherently biased and restricted. So, the Yugoslav Wars will not be included as "founding battles of European identity"? On which criterias? Maybe because they show that it is not the problem that I have a POV (while, of course, you are "moderate" and "neutral"), but because this article does not allow for NPOV. History of Europe does, and contents should be moved there, and this article deleted. This is, at worse, fascist propaganda, at best, incredible ignorance of the history of Europe, whatever you hear by this expression. Tazmaniacs 16:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • [Note: further comments have been moved to "comments subsection" below for better reading of the page. Hope that doesn't cause any problem to any one.]
  • Keep, for now. It is evident that the article has been edited on a continuous basis since creation so one can assume that sources will be added, especially after being tagged as unsourced. The title could be a little better but that can be resolved by renaming and redirecting no need to delete Alf photoman 22:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • VERY STRONG Keep, for now. As Alf photoman noted, this article has been continuously edited, and its greatest weakness is sourcing, which is certainly correctable. I am sorry that this is viewed in a Christian versus Islamic perspective - but reality is that in Austria the seige of Vienna is viewed with at least as much reverance as Americans do Yorktown or Saratoga, and in both Germany and France, Tours/Poiters is viewed in the same light. I am sorry but the critics of this article mostly are doing so because of POV, not history. This has the makings of a very good article, and certainly can be sourced. KEEP! old windy bear 01:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again, please don't engage other people under your flag. As already said, I happen to be a citizen of one of the country you mention, and I can assure you that, although one of the battle you've mentioned was often cited in elementary schools in the 19th century, we've done some (little) progress. Furthermore, I can also assure you that a very large part of my fellow citizens ignore the very existence of this battle, at best, they've heard about it when in elementary school. We more generally remember battles of the 19th and 20th century, sorry for any possible desillusions. Tazmaniacs 22:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this Article, it is already being sourced.I was asked to look at this article, and evaluate whether or not it needed deletion. It does not. The request is simple POV, and there has been no good faith shown, as the requester simply bitterly attacks all those who oppose deletion. oldwindybear has begun sourcing the article, and I will assist him, as will the original editor, I am sure. There is absolutely no need to evaluate this article because it offends POV of one or two very biased editors. Stillstudying 13:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or completely rewrite. Some of these battles have a controversial importance (e.g. battle of Tours - many say it was just a raid) or their inferred importance is of dubious relevance (e.g. battle of Chalons - what if Attila would have reached Atlantic Ocean?). Moreover to write a rather original theory of Europe's becoming following several battles commented by different scholars it is clearly an original research (not to say the already manifested concern - what is Europe or European civilization anyway?). Daizus 21:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Concept of article basically guarantees WP:OR. The Fifteen Decisive Battles of the World already did this in 1851, anyway. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Akhilleus. Any salvageable can be moved to History of Europe. Khoikhoi 09:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Most academic sources agree that certain battles shaped the (evolution of) Europe. In other words, most historians agree on these battles. This means that as long as sufficient reliable academic sources are cited, there is no violation of WP:OR, WP:POV or WP:V. Perhaps we should avoid the use of the word "European civilization" (i.e. a debatable term) and replace it with "European history" or "Western civilization". If a minority view exists that certain battles did not shape European history, the criticism can be added. Sijo Ripa 00:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. The title is a problem, not insurmountable. Let's give the contributors a chance to shape this & source it. If this is a subject that can be covered in History of Europe, it can just as easily be spun-off outside that article, in this article. Ewulp 08:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete is my conclusion after minutiously reading all the stuff and comments. Technically, the article is OK, however it is grounding upon two erroneous premises:
  1. the ideological premise of tacitly identifying Europe with Western (catholic ?) Europe
  2. the methodological premise of supposing that “battles” are relevant at a macro-historical scale; this is conjectural history, a sort of pseudohistorical approach speculating upon “what if…?” (What if Napoleon would have won Waterloo ?); no professional historian engages in historical conjectures.
However, in order to save the work done, you could include the material to a History of Western Europe, mentioning these battles as “significant”, no more. --Vintila Barbu 12:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Note: because of the long comments which followed an exchange of comments in the beginning of this Afd nomination, I've taken the liberty to move them here, for better reading of the page. I hope this doesn't disturb any one. Please include any long comments under this section. Tazmaniacs 22:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment. First, please assume good faith. Second, how can you really argue that this is not OR, since it relies on the very ill-defined concept of "European civilization" (not even adressing the questions about which battles should be included in this so-called "macrohistory" - where does this concept comes from? - and on which criterias). And, notwithstanding the question of the coherence of the concept of "civilization", what do you call "Europe"? An geographical expression, as Charles de Gaulle used to say, which went from the Atlantic Ocean to the Ural mountains? Or does it includes parts of Russia? Or should it exclude Russia, although it is a country which has been very closely related to European culture? Or do you mean European Union? What about Eastern Europe, which lived under a communist regime so long? And the UK, do they belong to Europe, although they're not part of the European continent? But fifty years ago the EU had only six countries, and before didn't exist (so how can you have battles defending the EU before its existence?) Alf photoman's opposition between "European civilization" and "Muslims" is POV, and was the subject of a strong debate between EU countries during the drafting of the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe (TCE), some arguing that "Christianism" was part of "European identity", while others argued that secularism was more important and that Europe was not inherently Christian (see History of the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe#Mention of Christianity in the preamble). So, Jews are not part of "European civilization"? What a nice thought... So, why shouldn't we argue that "European civilization" was defended by the Third Reich, and that it's last battle, which it lost, was in 1945 against the Allies? PS: the very example of Charles Martel and the 721 Battle of Toulouse, which more or less tends to accredit the thesis that the 7 centuries (!) of Al-Andalus were some sort of parenthesis, not to say "alien parasite" on the Christian Europe, is not only OR, but simple racism and ignorance of the huge importance of Islam for this so-called "European civilization". A simple example would be to recall that Aristotle and Plato were transmitted to the Middle Ages thanks to the works of Muslim philosophesr such as Averroes, who was called "The Commentator" by Thomas Aquinas, founder of... the most important philosophical doctrine of Christianism on which today's Roman Catholic Church (which, sorry, does not represent that much Europeans any more, and this started since the Reformation in the 16th century). Not to recall the importance of the Persian Avicenna for Western philosophy, but the author of this article obviously ignores that philosophy is part of that "European civilization." Of course, some prefer to celebrate the Reconquista, the expulsion of the Muslims and the Jews, the Inquisition and the Crusades. Not in my name, sorry! Tazmaniacs 23:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you had 'good faith' you would have asked the author to supply source and confront him over POV issues. Instead you just bring the article straight here hoping the whole lot is chucked into the bin.--Dacium 03:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We should not assume that Adolf and his gang of loonies wanted to defend Europe or European culture because their self proclaimed intent was to supplant the European culture with their own amalgam of loonacities they were making up as they went along. By the way, I don't think that Attila and his gang were Muslims (but from the East), yet the battle against them (aiding the Romans) was what at the end of the day formed the Frank identity, which later formed the first Holy Roman Empire of German Nations (took 400 years but what the heck...) whose first aim was to convert Eastern Barbarians to Christianism (such as the Saxons, the Allemande and so on) and later the Moorish invaders (sic.) in Spain. And no, I don't think these battles formed the European civilization, but surely they formed the European identity. Alf photoman 00:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a place to discuss what you think, but to discuss the legitimacy of this article. Keep your personal opinions to yourself, thank you. The disagreement between us is a clear sign that we don't agree on what "European identity" is, if there is such an "identity", so the article is built on sand and fascist POV. PS: beside, you obviously know nothing either of Nazi Germany if you claim that they didn't think they were defending "European civilization." Tazmaniacs 00:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because they were intent on exterminating several vital components of European culture, such as the Slaws to start with and all other non-Aryans (whatever that is) to end with and their cultural achievements with it, besides especially in this case it is not what I think but I am citing (not verbatim) Mein Kampf. But certainly we don't seem to agree on what European identity, while you are quoting what it should be I am quoting what renowned authors define it as. And buy the way, I take offense in being labeled as fascist because too many of my family died because of them or fighting against them Alf photoman 00:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry for offensing you. I have to insist that the title of this article is a source of continuing ideological debates which are best kept to a political forum, which Wikipedia is not. I am not quoting what "European identity" should be, I am pointing out that there is no single definition of that, as shown by the debate over the inclusion, or not, of Christianity to the preamble of the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe, debate which ended with the decision not to include it. I think this provides sufficient sources for my claim that this article is ill-named and should be deleted. Its author may include its content in History of Europe, where it belongs. I am not even adressing the concept of "macrohistory", in particular when it refers to "battles", sending for this to Fernand Braudel's work concerning long tendencies in history (he talked about the Mediterranean Sea, not about soldiers). Tazmaniacs 16:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, lets cool this, sincerely I don't like the content of the article either and I abhor the idea of wars being nation building, but that does not take away the evidence that it is factual, or at least generally accepted by historians. This has nothing to do with what we like or we don't like and that is the difference between history and the pamphlet of a political movement Alf photoman 17:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But the problem is precisely this: historians don't agree on what constitutes the "identity" of the "European civilisation" (assuming there is such an "European civilisation", which, for the sake of not engaging in philosophical debates, I will temporary accord you), much less on the concept of a "macrohistory" (if there really is such a concept), so the whole article falls under OR. The "factual evidence", as you put it, such as, let's say, the fact that there was in 732 a battle in Poitiers, headed on the French side by [[Charles Martel], does not entail the ideological interpretation that this event was a "macrohistorical battle" on which depended the fate of European existence. In fact, I don't see why, if the battle had been lost by Charles Martel, the existence of Europe would have been endangered. It would have been different, which is not the same. But the fact that Al-Andalus existed in modern Spain for 7th centuries did not "destroy European identity" (sic). All the factual events cited in this article should be moved to History of Europe, which is a NPOV title, and if the author wants to argue that they had "macrohistorical importance for the destiny of European civilization" (in particular the Christian part of this "civilization", leaving out Bosnians because, although they are a European ethnic group, they don't have the luck to fit into this ideological reading of history which excludes Muslims from it), well, let him argue that in a NPOV article: History of Europe. You can't seriously say this entry has got a NPOV name, and much less back-it up with serious sources. I have already cited the debate about the European Constitution, I think this is enough source for a Wikipedia debate. We all have more important things to do than political arguing here. Tazmaniacs 17:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly agree with Tazmaniacs that we need to wind down the level of rhetoric, and stop the naming calling first and foremost. Then a better title needs to be found. I personally do believe the article is worth keeping though its present title needs changing, and it needs to be sourced - it's biggest weakness is the lack of references, which I am beginning to rectify. As to Tours, I think Bury - one of the truly great giants in the field of history - said it best: John Bagnell Bury, writing at the beginning of the 20th century, said "The Battle of Tours… has often been represented as an event of the first magnitude for the world’s history, because after this, the penetration of Islam into Europe was finally brought to a standstill.”[1] Let us discuss this rationally, and no one engage in accusing those of differing opinions of bad faith. old windy bear 23:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can't build a 21st century Encyclopedia on historical accounts of the early 20th century. Would you imagine what kind of account of World War I it would do? With, for example, a section supporting the French views of the epoch, and calling Germans names, while the other would support Germany, and insult French? Or something about colonialism calling Black people "niggers" and "barbarians"? No, all my respect for Bury, but there have been some progress since in historical research and views, and Bury rather belongs to historiography, as do all historians from this period. This article should be deleted, because the name is very POV, and its content transfered (that's not difficult) to History of Europe. I can't see any other way to find a consensual decision, and I don't know why you don't consider this simple solution: the list of battles will remain, just as part of the History of Europe, instead of some Original Research concerning "macrohistory" (not to say "European civilization")? Tazmaniacs 03:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I remember the battle fought over Tours on wikipedia, it was really ugly - of course people don't mention Victor Davis Hanson and William E. Watson, two of the most respected historians of this era, both of whom say today that Tours was a battle of incredible importance. However, you may have suggested a way to settle this without a long drawn out fight - I would certainly be amicable to change the title and leave the list, remaining as some sort of subtitle to the History of Europe. I think that is a reasonable suggestion. We can debate the individual battles, such as Tours, afterwards, but I certainly think your suggestion that the list remain, but retitled to remove the offensive wording is a reasonable and fair solution. I owe you an apology for saying you were only acting out of POV. In attacking your motives, I was doing the very thing I was condemning, and I apologize. I like your idea of leaving the list of battles but retitling it, and old windy bear has begun referencing the entire article, and I will help him source each article. Stillstudying 12:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure how historians are valued, but there are reputable scholars considering the battle of Tours of little importance (like Tomaž Mastnak for instance, which you will find in the same article on Tours). Also while mentioning Hanson, one should remember his main theory but also his conflicts like the one with Jared Diamond (the two proposing two different drives for progress: Hanson - an aggresive culture of warfare and pragmatism and "democratical values", Diamond - an environmental preconditioning), and realize that when some people argue for macrohistorical importance, actually they speak within an ideological framework, within a paradigm, therefore their assessment is strictly conditioned by their premises (and not by some premises with quasi-universal acceptance in various historiographies worldwide). My point is when someone invokes a historian like Hanson and represents his POV, he actually represents his whole theory of how the world is changing/progressing. Therefore even if a scholarly reference would argue for a series of battles (I am not sure if Hanson argues the battles he chose to be all of macrohistorical importance or just examples to promote his theory), that would be at best only a POV which furthermore needs balanced by other POVs. And last, but not at least, the POV supporting macrohistorical importance relies most often on speculation and at best analogies (for the case of Tours: that Islam would further advance in Europe, that Ummayads would have continued a conquest in Gaul or furthermore in other European lands, that the ascension of Charlemagne would have been eclipsed by the insuccess of Martel to stop the Muslim forces at Tours, that the situation of Gaul would be the same as the situation of Iberian peninsula etc.), which even when coming from scholars, they still should be taken as they are - simple claims, not actual arguments. Of course, it shouldn't be us, the editors, pointing that but we can invoke those scholars debunking these myths (and as I mentioned before, for the case we're discussing there are already references in the article on Tours). The burden of proof lies on those claiming the macrohistorical importance (i.e. the positive claim) and just saying the world would have been drastically changed it doesn't make it so. Daizus 13:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, every historian had his or her own perspective, or philosophy, which you could call point of view if you want. But the wikipedia policy is simple: we are barred, as editors, from interpreting anything, and can only cite the original scholars and their theories. So while Hanson may have had a framework he put Tours in, believing that it fit into his theory that the Carolingian control of Europe, and the feudal systems which would carry Europe through the Dark Ages after Rome's fall were assured by Charles Martel's signal victory at Tours, it really does not matter. We won't settle the Tours argument here - oldwindybear and others have been fighting that for years! But the fact is that most of the western historians of today do believe Tours was of macrohistorical importance. Hanson believes even if it was not in the grand scheme of stopping Umayyad conquest of Europe, it certainly was in that it assured Frankish dominion of Europe, which led it safely into the Middle Ages after Rome's collapse. Watson is even more fervant in praising Martel. My point is, you said their saying this battle changed the world does not make it so - but it does for our purposes. Hanson and Watson, just to name two, make detailed and strong cases for why that battle was a crucial turning point in history. Hanson in particular is a very well thought of military historian, and his analysis of the battle is first rate. Watson is another very well known modern historian who has made a very detailed and complex argument that historically this battle determined the fate of Europe as we know it. We can only cite them, and those in opposition, and let the reader decide. Stillstudying 16:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"But the fact is that most of the western historians of today do believe Tours was of macrohistorical importance" - this is still to be proved. I haven't seen anywhere in this article, in the article on Tours (or any other battles listed in this article) any decent attempt to review scholarship and historiographies (possibly none of us has the ability or the knowledge to do it, then we should refrain from hiding behind assumed majorities). Let me browse few historians from my own bookshelves: Pierre Riche (1989) claims "the battle of Poitiers for some was an unimportant military action stopping a raid while for others was a significant event for the destiny of Charles Martel and the Carolingians" (nothing about an iminent conquest of Islam/Ummeyads, though), while the same author justified with another occasion (1962: due to constant Arab raids and invasions, the dukes of Aquitania called Charles Martel and thus the southern Gaul was ruined and gradually fell under Austrasian/Carolingian authority (nothing particular about the battle of Poitiers). According to Lucien Musset (1965), Charles Martel intercepted the Arab offensive (heading for St. Martin sanctuary to pillage it) and defeated them but that didn't stop the Arabs which kept invading the southern parts of France in the following years (730s). The significance of Charles Martel southern campaigns was that the Austrasians started to focus on this rich region and attempt to drag it under their authority. My concern is - who and how has estabilished the "mainstream" of interpretations is to value the battle of Tours (or any of these battles) of macrohistorical importance?
Hanson's perspective is not given at all, so the work of the editors is not complete until it is shown the macrohistorical significance given by Hanson is tributary to his specific and perhaps controversial view (like someone nicely observed in one of the paragraphs below, ultimately a Hegelian view). As already suggested, perhaps it would be a nicer/more fruitful discussion (or even article), the opposition of paradigms: to take a simple case based on two of our examples so far - a historian of Annales like Pierre Riche and a historian like Hanson. Daizus 21:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hope we agree to merge this content into History of Europe on the grounds that this article is bound to be OR and subject of endless, tiring, debates. I thank Achileus for his quick, and to the point, comment, refering to the 1851 work, which shows all the problems lifted by this article. Note that at the time, scholars didn't even feel the need to say "Europe", as "World" was a synonym. Europeans found after World War I that there were other states to take into account. I also do agree with Daizus, who points out that the reason behind our controverse concerns the philosophical nature of this article, rather than a simple historical account (I'm sorry for having taking the point a bit too seriously, but it is, in fact, a serious matter, which clearly provides a dividing line, for philosophical & political matters - that mustn't stop us from speaking like... Greeks in an Assembly...).


Thus, it is impossible to try to NPOV it by providing sources from historians;
first, as we all known, history is not a science in the same sense as physics, and can only tend towards objectivity, without ever achieving it (see Paul Ricoeur's interesting account on this).
Second, this article does not concerns a historical debate but a philosophical reading of history, mainly based on Hegel's reading. It doesn't ask itself if X did happen? or how much was the cost of grain before the French Revolution? And how was the climate during the time preceding the French Revolution? - see the works of Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie on the history of climate, which, although Ladurie is known for microhistory (:), is certainly of macrohistorical interest - dinosaurs, anyone? ) It is, of course, on purpose that I refer to historians, such as Braudel or Le Roy Ladurie, who claim that battles are, after all, events which belong to a short time-span compared to long-time span such as climates or geographical influences (work on the Mediterranean Sea, the real "hero" of history for Braudel, and which is the basis of any geopolitics - i.e. seeing long tendencies and continuities between the Russian Empire & the Soviet Union, not to say today's Putin's Russia...)
Thus, apart of the problem of a "Western civilization" (which is, I think, a concept a bit more convincing than "European civilization", especially today), and of a very ideological attempt at identity politics, which may have been done, or not, on purposes (but which explains why I adamantly refuse this pseudo-opposition between Islam and Christianism, which clearly is POV far from being mainstream), there is a real, philosophical problem, about the importance of battles in general, that is, of "macrohistorical battles". As someone pointed out at the very first of this Afd, "macrohistorical battle" is a contradiction in terms. Referring to the historians above, I agree with him. Beside merging the content of this article into History of Europe, Philosophy of history might be an article that will interest you — it is a passionating subject! To recall you that there are very different perspectives on this "philosophy of history", I'll recall Nietzsche's words here, concerning "Great Events":

Ye understand how to roar and obscure with ashes! Ye are the best

braggarts, and have sufficiently learned the art of making dregs boil.
Where ye are, there must always be dregs at hand, and much that is spongy, hollow, and compressed: it wanteth to have freedom.
'Freedom' ye all roar most eagerly: but I have unlearned the belief in 'great events,' when there is much roaring and smoke about them.
And believe me, friend Hullabaloo! The greatest events--are not our noisiest, but our stillest hours.
Not around the inventors of new noise, but around the inventors of new values, doth the world revolve; INAUDIBLY it revolveth.
And just own to it! Little had ever taken place when thy noise and smoke passed away. What, if a city did become a mummy, and a statue lay in the mud!
And this do I say also to the o'erthrowers of statues: It is certainly the greatest folly to throw salt into the sea, and statues into the mud...

Thus Spake Zarathustra, II, "On Great Events"

If there is such a thing as a "European civilization", one thing is sure: it is not a fixed, permanent, essential identity, to which we should refer to as a myth which must governs our politics. "European civilization" is what we make of it, and if ("with 'if', says a saying, "you can put Paris into a bottle"...) the Third Reich had won, than Europe would still exist, although it would be certainly sad. "If" Charles Martel had not won, than maybe Al Andalus would have extended itself, and the wonders of that place, and its tolerance towards Christians and Jews, and its amazing knowledge concerning architecture, medicine, philosophy, etc., would have permit Europe to avoid the Wars of Religion, the dark Middle Ages (which were not as dark as we think they were), and immediately pass to the bright Renaissance and then Enlightenment... One needn't be Muslim to acclaim the wonders of Al Andalus, especially compared to the dark period that succeeded to it, and not buy the fairy tale that "Islam" is a threat to so-called European identity. Around the inventors of new values, doth the world revolve... indeed Tazmaniacs 18:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can support renaming this, or somehow putting it with the history of Europe. Tazmaniacs are you aware that Sir Arthur Clarke, the famous science fiction writer, helped create a number of computer models that postulated "what ifs" and asked what would have happened if, say, the Umyyad's had won at Tours, and Martel had been killed. The results are astonding. According to the computer models, Al Andalus would have extended itself, and Europe would have avoided all of the wars, the cruelities of the Middle Ages, the Crusades, with all the attendant violence and visciousness, and humanity would have reached the stars by now. I am not saying these models were correct, but they certainly exist, and make a strong argument that the pro-western bias is not necessarily correct, and Charles Martel, while a national hero in Germany and France, did not do the world good when he ended the expansion of Al Andalus Stillstudying 19:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NO Deletion!

NO DELETION, but I have no trouble agreeing to renaming the article and putting it with the History of Europe. As to the claim that Hanson did not address Tours as a battle of macrohistorical importance, please read "Culture and Carnage: Landmark Battles in the Rise of Western Power." On page 167:
"Recent scholars have suggested Poitiers, so poorly recorded in contemporary sources, was a mere raid and thus a construct of western mythmaking or that a Muslim victory might have been preferable to continued Frankish dominance. What is clear is that Poitiers marked a general continuance of the successful defense of Europe, (from the Muslims). Flush from the victory at Tours, Charles Martel went on to clear southern France from Islamic attackers for decades, unify the warring kingdoms into the foundations of the Carolingian Empire, and ensure ready and reliable troops from local estates."
This is pretty clearly an analysis that states flatly that this battle was absolutely vital in the development of Europe as we know it today. Whether that is a "good" or "bad" thing depends on your perspective. William Watson, one of America's better known historians in this generation, says of Tours:
"There is clearly some justification for ranking Tours-Poitiers among the most significant events in Frankish history when one considers the result of the battle in light of the remarkable record of the successful establishment by Muslims of Islamic political and cultural dominance along the entire eastern and southern rim of the former Christian, Roman world. The rapid Muslim conquest of Palestine, Syria, Egypt and the North African coast all the way to Morocco in the seventh century resulted in the permanent imposition by force of Islamic culture onto a previously Christian and largely non-Arab base. The Visigothic kingdom fell to Muslim conquerors in a single battle on the Rio Barbate in 711, and the Hispanic Christian population took seven long centuries to regain control of the Iberian peninsula. The Reconquista, of course, was completed in 1492, only months before Columbus received official backing for his fateful voyage across the Atlantic Ocean. Had Charles Martel suffered at Tours-Poitiers the fate of King Roderick at the Rio Barbate, it is doubtful that a "do-nothing" sovereign of the Merovingian realm could have later succeeded where his talented major domus had failed. Indeed, as Charles was the progenitor of the Carolingian line of Frankish rulers and grandfather of Charlemagne, one can even say with a degree of certainty that the subsequent history of the West would have proceeded along vastly different currents had ‘Abd ar-Rahman been victorious at Tours-Poitiers in 732."
Noted educator Dexter B. Wakefield writes, "A Muslim France? Historically, it nearly happened. But as a result of Martel’s fierce opposition, which ended Muslim advances and set the stage for centuries of war thereafter, Islam moved no farther into Europe. European schoolchildren learn about the Battle of Tours in much the same way that American students learn about Valley Forge and Gettysburg." So for those who claim that Tours is not a landmark event in western history, sorry, most historians, early, mid, and modern, disagree. old windy bear 01:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most historians? How many historians have talked about this battle? Hundreds? Thousands? How many can you list? Even you quoted Hanson with "Recent scholars have suggested Poitiers, so poorly recorded in contemporary sources, was a mere raid and thus a construct of western mythmaking or that a Muslim victory might have been preferable to continued Frankish dominance". On what grounds do you assume these "recent scholars" are actually a minority? Hanson himself is not supporting this view. Daizus 13:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is being rewritten, and heavily sourced, and should be judged then

I did not write the article, but am rewriting it, putting in opposing viewpoints, and sourcing it massively. But the sources have to be cited correctly. People who depend on Hanson -- and it is understandable, as he is one of our foremost military historians! -- need to go READ Hanson, who very carefully dismantles the theory that Tours/Poitiers was merely a raid, and shows how Martel and his men put an end to the Islamic wave that had swept aside empires on three continents, see Hanson summarizing the long term influence historically of this battle, Page 167:.
"What is clear is that Poitiers marked a general continuence of the successful western defense of Europe. Flush from his victory at Poitiers, Charles went on to clear southern France from Islamic invaders for decades, unify the warring kingdoms into the foundation of the Carolingian Empire, and ensure ready and avaiable troops from local estates."
Hanson gives an extremely detailed military analysis of why this battle was so vital to western history - citing many times the sources for this being a macrohistorical victory "saving" Europe, "the great land" as it was called by the Umayyads, as he explains why those holding the thesis that it was merely a raid are historically and militarily wrong. Hanson cites Gibbon, Ranke, Creasy, Oman, Fuller, and quoted the great german military historian Hans Delbruck, who said of this battle "there was no more important battle in the history of the world." (The Barbarian Invasions, page 441.) After Tours, Hanson said, quoting Oman, "for the future we hear of Frankish invasions of Spain, not Saracen INvasions of Gaul!" (The Dark Ages Pages 476-918, 299). He talks about Martel's remarkable ability to unify warring tribes to face the Islamic invasion, quoting Constantine, War in the Middle Ages. Hanson closed his article by assessing why Europeans adapted so easily to modern warfare by saying on page 169:
"they were not the products of a nomadic horse people, tribal society, or even theocratic autocracy, but drew their heritige from tough foot soldiers...the type of men who formed a veritable wall of ice at Poitiers and so beat Abd ar-Rahman back."
You need to read Hanson's works, which very clearly and very systematically explain why this battle is of such huge macrohistorical importance, and why Charles and his infantry were able to withstand the supposedly invincible Islamic cavalry, page 157:
"The legions had crumbled not because of organizational weaknesses, technological backwardness, or even problems of command and dsicipline, but because of the dearth of free citizens who were willing to fight for their own freedom and the values of their civilization. Such spirited warriors the barbarians had, and when they absorbed the blueprint of roman militarism, a number of effective local western armies arose - as the Muslims learned at Poitiers." old windy bear 14:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I'm not a fan of Hanson, I've rather browsed Carnage & Culture, read some of his reviews and materials in press, watched some of his debates with Jared Diamond, and generally I wasn't impressed by his arguments and I've read better arguments from the other side.
On this topic, Hanson et al. have yet to persuade me that Islam and Western Europe Christianity are two monolithic entities to make their theories work for me. Hanson et al. have yet to persuade me their take on the alternative histories is the correct one (that the Islamic forces from Spain would indeed pursue to conquer Gaul, that if Martel would have lost a battle he'd have lose the entire Gaul to Arabs, that if Arabs eventually would have invaded the entire Gaul, the reconquest would be similar with Spanish Reconquista, etc., etc. - so many speculations and assertions and so little evidence for it).
Also when someone quotes rather obsolete historians really doesn't make a good impression (unless he tries to evoke a historiographical tradition). No offense, but historians relying on Gibbon are in my eyes like physicists relying on Newton. Relying on Creasy, von Ranke, Oman, Fuller looks also obsolete. I mean, they may have valueable ideas, but they can't be simply quoted as authorities for the historical studies of the 21st century! You can evoke them, but no more. Several decades it is a long time in this field, though I like their writing I have my inherent doubts even when I'm reading historians like Lucien Musset writing 4 decades ago. I know, I'm no position to reject secondary sources in being present in the Wiki articles (unless I bring scholars to support my position), but I can show you there's no way to persuade me in quoting massively rather outdated scholarship.
Oh, and on Hanson quoting Oman - I hope you know there were other Saracen invasions in Gaul after Tours. Like the plundering of Arles and the much of the Provence region in 734 or the later invasions in Burgundy. See also Martel's campaigns in southern Gaul in 736-7 which are documented even here on Wikipedia. Daizus 18:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I wrote you on the talk page of the article, I am just beginning a rewrite of an article I did not write. If you want a great account of the invasions circa 734-737, see Fouracre or Antonio Santosuosso who maintains the defeat of the Muslim forces at the River Berre by Martel was far more important than Tours. I am just in the beginning stages - I honestly believe you will feel the article is fair when I am done. As to the accounts of Martel's campaigns in Gaul in 736-7, if you check the history, I wrote most of what is here. Please give me time - I have ordered Hitti's book, and other material I need to finish this rewrite. You know as well as I the major problem now is generalizations without sourcing. I am going to rewrite putting in all views, sourced heavily.
As to Hanson, I think his best work lies in his analysis of why heavy infantry was the key to Frankish domination, (the history of heavy infantry, what it was, et al) and his analysis of cavalry versus Knights, and mixed force armies. I think he is right on those issues - on Tours, frankly, despite the time gone by, Bury convinces me more than anyone except Watson, who is the best we have today. (just my opinion, and I do NOT put it in articles)old windy bear 19:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Old windy bear, you really ought to seriously consider arguments opposed to you by a number of users, in particular concerning WP:OR and Wikipedia:Naming conflict. Please also consider Achilleus' citation of the 1851 The Fifteen Decisive Battles of the World, and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Scholarship:

Wikipedia relies heavily upon the established literature created by scientists, scholars and researchers around the world. Items that fit this criterion are usually considered reliable. However, they may be outdated by more recent research

Working on the article as it currently stands does not answer to the objections that a number of users have opposed to it, don't invest energy on that without taking into account these criticisms. Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopedia, and when serious criticisms are done, it is best to hear them. Why don't you rather work on History of Europe which needs help, and where you can speak about the same subject if you want? Tazmaniacs 21:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Tazmaniacs If I did not hear the criticisms, I would not have taken on the chore of correcting what was wrong with the article. I did not write it, but I felt you and several other people, whose work I respect, had raised some very legitimate critques that needed addressing if the article was to stay. Please realize I don't have a personal interest in what happens in this vote. I didn't write the article. Since the original editor had not begun correcting it, I decided to, and in fact, had asked another editor I respect greatly to help me. I agree with you in part on the naming conflict, I only entered this dispute because someone brought this entire issue to my attention, and I decided that the article was salvagable, but had to be completely rewritten and sourced. Remember, one tenet of our work on wikipedia is editors are encouraged to be bold, and try to correct errors in fact and form where they are found. I don't think my motives, especially considering I am not the original author - can be questioned for being anything other than a simple desire to make this a better article. I think as many people support it as want to delete it - but you have a very valid point that there is no point in working on an article which may be deleted. I will wait for the result of the vote before investing any further energy and time in it. The books I ordered will be useful for work on other military history Carolingian articles and medieval issues in any event. As to the issue of using older historians, Gibbon is still cited as the paramount historian on Rome, despite his work being over 200 years old! Creasy is cited by Paul Davis, Mike Grant, and Hanson, just to name three modern scholars. Bury is still regarded as the great authority by some of the foregoing on the later Roman Empire. I don't think just the age of the work renders it obsolete. In fact, this whole issue of what role the work of those historians should play is a very interesting ongoing academic conflict. old windy bear 22:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

when is the vote over?

It is pretty obvious the vote is in favor of keeping the article at least long enough to see if we can source it and rewrite and retitle it. When is the vote formally over, so we can begin correting the things which need doing? I have done some, but a LOT of work needs doing, and the way the vote looks, we need to get to it. (This vote does not mean the article is out of the woods, it just means, if it stays this way, that people want to see if can be corrected, which I pesonally think it can. I have asked a couple of really first rate editors to help, and I think it can be put in fine fettle. SO, when is the vote over, so we can get to it?)old windy bear 23:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • You don't have to wait for the discussion to close before improving the article. Effective efforts to address the POV and original research problems mentioned above would certainly be a factor in this debate. --Dystopos 02:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I had originally stopped because Tazmaniacs strongly suggested - see above - that i wait until the vote was over. If you go look at the article, I have been steadily working on it, though not to the extent I intend to. I intend to rewrite it completely, once we - and I need input from other editors - agree on which battles to list, from which books to pull the list. On the battles presently in the article, look at the recent changes, and I think you will see a huge difference already. old windy bear 02:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ Cambridge Medieval History p.374.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Macrohistorical_battles_tied_to_the_existence_of_European_civilisation&oldid=1069018443"