There are only two accounts of the Battle of Tours, both of which are brief and not necessary factually accurate. Both, however, do correctly convey certain broad themes. The Iberian Christian Chronicle of 754 states:

[t]hen Abd-ar-Rahman, seeing the land filled with the multitude of his army, cur through the rocky mountains of the Basques so that, crossing the plains, he might invade the territory of the Franks. He struck so far into Frankish territory that he joined battle with [Eudo] on the other side of the rivers Garonne and Dordogne. God only knows the number of those who died or fled, [Eudo] himself slipping away in flight. While Abd ar-Rahman was pursuing [Eduo], he decided to despoil Tours by destroying its palaces and churches. There he confronted the counsel of Austrasia by the name of Charles, a man who, having proved himself to be a warrior from his youth and an expert in things military, had been summoned by [Eudo]. After each side had tormented the other with raids for almost seven days, they finally prepared their battle lines and fought fiercely. The northern peoples remained as immobile as a wall, holding together like a glacier in the cold regions. In a blink of an eye, they annihilated the Arabs with the sword. The people of Austrasia, greater in number than the Arabs and formidably armed, killed the king, Abd ar-Rahman, when they found him, striking him on the chest. But suddenly, within sight of the countless tents of the Arabs, the Franks despicably sheathed their swords, postponing the fight until the next day since night had fallen during the battle. Rising from their own camp at dawn, the Europeans saw the tents and canopies of the Arabs all arranged just as they had appeared the day before. Not knowing that they were empty and thinking that inside them were the Saracen forces ready for battle, they sent officers to reconnoitre and discovered that all of the Ishmaleite troops had left. They had indeed fled silently by night in tight formation, returning to their own country. Worried that the Saracens might attempt to ambush them, the Europeans were slow to react and thus they searched in vain all around deciding against pursuing the Saracens, they took the spoils – which they divided fairly amongst themselves – back to their country and were overjoyed.

The Frankish Continuations of Fredegar, which was sponsored by Charles’ half-brother Childebrand (and then by his son), tells a similar, but certainly not identical, story:

[w]hen Eudo, the duke of Aquitaine, saw that prince Charles had so beaten and humiliated him that he could not take vengeance without finding outside help, he made an alliance with the Saracens of Spain, and called on them for help against prince Charles and against Christianity . The Saracens then left Spain, with one of their kings, whose name was [Abd ar-Rahman], with all their women and children, and with all their possessions, which were too great to be counted. They brought with them all their equipment and whatever they owned, as though they were going to remain forever in France. The crossed the Gironde, and entered the city of Bordeaux, killing the people, burning the churches, and destroying the country. Then they went on to Poitiers, destroying everything, as they had done in Marseilles, and burning the church of Saint Hilarius, about which there was much grief. From there they set out for the city of Tours, to destroy the church of Saint Martin, the city, and the entire region. There the victorious prince Charles came before them, with all the aid he could muster; he drew up his battle-lines and plunged in among them with miraculous courage, like a hungry lion attacking sheep. In the name of the power of Our Lord, he made such a great slaughter of the enemies of the Christian faith that, as the history witnesses, he killed 385,000 of them in that battle, together with their king, whose name was [Abd ar-Rahman] . Then was he first given the surname Hammer, for, as a hammer breaks and smashes iron and other metals, so did he break his enemies and all foreign nations in battle. Miraculously, in this battle he lost only 1500 of his own men. He captured their tents and their gear, and took for himself and his men everything that the Saracens had. To raise money for this expedition he took the churches' tithes and gave it to the knights, though only temporarily, to defend the Christian faith and the kingdom, acting on the advice and with the consent of the prelates; he promised that if God preserved his life he would generously give the tithes back to the churches, together with other gifts. This he did for the great wars that he waged so often, because of the continual assaults of his enemies. Eudo, the duke of Aquitaine, who had provoked the advent of so many Saracens, brought about a reconciliation with prince Charles Martel, and later killed whatever Saracens he could find who had escaped from this battle.

Both accounts make clear that the invading army was large; their immediate objective was to plunder Tours; that the Franks won a great victory; that Charles was integral to that victory; that Abd ar-Rahman was killed in the fighting; and that the Franks were able to plunder the invaders’ camp. Yet the accounts also differ in significant respects.

First, the Continuations of Fredegar states that the invaders had come at Eudo’s request, while the Chronicle of 754 posits that they had come to punish Eudo. Scholarly opinion appears to be that the Continuations of Fredegar isincorrect, perhaps deliberately so, in order to denigrate Eudo and legitimize Charles’ subsequent subjugation of Aquitaine.

Second, the Chronicle of 754 states that the invaders were outnumbered, while the Continuations of Fredegar suggests that the Franks were outnumbered. This is a difficult knot to untie. The Chronicle of 754 was written well after the battle by people who were not at the battle, probably had never spoken with anyone who had been at the battle, and who likely had little, if any, understanding of military affairs. Yet, there is a certain logic to the claim. Campaigning in the 8th century was extremely difficult and it is easy to imagine that even a good sized expedition was probably smaller than the forces available to a well-organized defender, especially after months of campaigning had dwindled the invaders through causalities, desertion, and sickness.

The Continuations of Fredegar, however, was written under the auspices of Charles’ half-brother, who may (along with his own close retainers and relatives) have fought at Tours. Thus, one can suppose that Childebrand and his associates might have provided the authors with information about the fighting and expected that the written account comport with their experience. But, the Franks were also masters at manipulating the written word to promote various political objectives and their chronicles are littered with half-truths, exaggerations, and even outright fabrications, all designed to glorify the patrons of the chronicle and to demonize and belittle their enemies. Thus, while the report that Charles’ men suffered 1500 casualties might be accurate (making Tours a bloody battle given that Charles’ army probably numbered only a few thousand men) the report that Charles army killed 385,000 of the enemy is certainly a wild exaggeration. In fact, if Charles’ men had killed 3,850 of the enemy they had probably all but annihilated them, and had certainly destroyed them as an effective fighting force.

Finally, the Chronicle of 754 reports that the Franks were immovable and unbreakable, while the Continuations of Fredegar speaks of Charles and his men "plung[ing] in" to battle, cutting the invaders down like "a lion among sheep." Again, one would expect that the Continuations of Fredegar to be the more accurate source, but for the politicization of Frankish chronicles (a smacking attack certainly sounds more brave than a steadfast defense) and there is a certain amount of intuitive logic in the Chronicle of 754; i.e., Charles and his men stood between the invaders and Tours. If they could hold their ground, they would have denied their enemy its objective.

Is it possible, however, that both accounts are accurate? Coming to battle in the Early Middle Ages was no easy feat, as scouting was dreadful and armies very difficult to maneuver. Thus, the notion of a long feeling out process and the Franks in a defensive posture as conveyed by the Chronicle of 754 has appeal. That is, it is entirely possible that the Franks took up a defensive posture astride the road between Poitiers and Tours and waited for the invaders, with both sides sending out scouts who skirmished with one another until the invaders could maneuver into position to attack the Franks. Moreover, while the statement that the Franks destroyed their enemies "with the sword" may have been just a literary convention, it is consistent with what we know about how the Franks fought and it is possible that the account thus reflects an accurate portrayal of what occurred. Further supporting the accuracy of the Chronicle of 754 is the fact that it refers to Charles as an Austrasian, which he was by birth.

Indeed, that the Chronicle of 754 may have conveyed an accurate picture of the fighting is further supported by its report that the Franks were cautious in their approach to the invaders’ encampment, fearing an ambush. Ambushes were quite common in this period because of the poor state of scouting and intelligence and Charles’s victory at Ambleve in AD 716 had been an ambush upon his Neustrian and Frisian enemies, as they lay encamped in the afternoon, resting. The description of the Franks "despicable" decision not to pursue the retreating invaders into their camp, their very cautious approach the next morning, and their reluctance to pursue for fear of ambush could have been an accurate reflection of Charles’ apprehension at taking risks unnecessary for the Franks to achieve their strategic goal of blocking the invaders’ advance to Tours.

But, the account of the Continuations of Fredegar also has certain logic. Much in pre-gunpowder warfare depended on the impetus of a well-timed charge. Moreover, the invaders’ archery was certainly far superior to that of the Franks both in quality and in quantity. Thus, it does seem possible that the Franks might have launched a well-timed charge into their foe in order to gain forward momentum, as well as to end the rain of missiles that was likely falling upon them.

Despite the differences, the two accounts can be reconciled in a plausible way. It is possible that Charles had positioned his army in the path of his enemy’s advance and thus forced the invaders to battle. Once battle had been joined, Charles might have ordered some or all of his men forward, either preemptively, or at some key point in the fighting. Staying in good order, the Franks might then have ground down the invaders, who were not used to the shoulder-to-shoulder style of fighting at which the Franks excelled.

Reading the Chronicle of 754 as normative rather than descriptive, the passage about the Franks being "immobile as a wall, holding together like a glacier" could reflect only their ability and willingness to fight at close quarters in tight formation, rather than their having taken up a defensive posture. Further supporting the notion that Charles and his men smashed into the invaders and not vice versa is the statement in the Chronicle of 754 that "[I]n a blink of an eye, [the Franks] annihilated the Arabs with the sword." If the invaders had been the ones to charge, it seems unlikely that their attack would have been so quickly dissipated. Moreover, that the Chronicle of 754 indicates that the invaders were pushed back toward their camp also suggests that it was the Franks who had the forward momentum.

Obviously, we will never know exactly what happened that day, but we do know that when the battle was over, Charles and his men were victorious, Abd ar-Rahman lay dead, and his army had been utterly smashed.