en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tours
2 corrections found
Moussais-la-Bataille, France
The battlefield’s exact site is not known. Modern reference works describe Moussais-la-Bataille as only one proposed location among several, not an established fact.
Full reasoning
This statement presents the battle site as settled, but modern scholarship does not. Encyclopaedia Britannica says the battlefield cannot be exactly located and places it only somewhere between Tours and Poitiers; it lists Moussais-la-Bataille as just one of several possibilities. Oxford Bibliographies likewise notes that there are still uncertainties about the battle’s precise location. So the problem is not that Moussais-la-Bataille is impossible, but that stating it as the definite location overstates what the evidence supports.
2 sources
- Battle of Tours | Facts, History, & Importance | Britannica
The battlefield cannot be exactly located, but it was fought somewhere between Tours and Poitiers... Possibilities include ... Moussais-la-Bataille...
- Battle of Tours (732?) | Oxford Bibliographies in Military History
There are many uncertainties about the Battle of Tours, including its date, precise location, and significance.
Odo's forces, like other European troops of that era, had no stirrups at that time and therefore no heavy cavalry.
This is wrong on both counts: stirrups had already reached Europe by about AD 600, and heavy cavalry existed long before stirrups.
Full reasoning
Modern scholarship does not support the idea that western European forces in 732 had no stirrups and therefore no heavy cavalry. A recent synthesis in Antiquity states that iron stirrups spread into Europe by about AD 600, well before the Battle of Tours. The same article also explains that heavy cavalry had already emerged long before stirrups: innovations in saddle stability allowed riders to fight while heavily armed, helping heavy cavalry replace chariots by the end of the first millennium BC. Britannica similarly notes that the age of heavy shock cavalry did not arrive suddenly because of the stirrup and that the iron stirrup was already common by the 7th century. So the sentence is inaccurate both in claiming stirrups were absent and in treating stirrups as the necessary condition for heavy cavalry.
2 sources
- The origins of saddles and riding technology in East Asia: discoveries from the Mongolian Altai | Antiquity | Cambridge Core
In Stage III (sixth century AD and later), iron stirrups spread widely across much of Inner Asia, reaching Europe by c. AD 600... Such innovations in saddle stability... helped heavy cavalry replace chariots on the battlefield by the end of the first millennium BC across Eurasia.
- Military technology - Cavalry, Warfare, Tactics | Britannica
The age of heavy shock cavalry did not come on suddenly, ushered in by the stirrup or any other single invention... the iron stirrup was common by the 7th.