Talk:Mongol invasion of Europe

Ethnocentrism

The last sentence:

Had the Great Khan Ogodei not died, and Batu had decided to proceed westward, the French King would have found Paradise.

what does finding paradise mean?

sounds like an ethnocentric taunt... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.7.37.221 (talk • contribs) 17:23, August 18, 2005

It's a well known fact that the Mongols were the most powerful force in Eurasia at the time. Statements about the Mongolians destroying Europe have been echoed in many other related articles in Wikipedia. -unsigned —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lengis (talk • contribs) 03:14, January 31, 2006

It is a bookend to the statement in the introduction �The famous remark of the French King that he was going to fight the Tartars and would either send them back to hell or be himself sent to paradise was a sign of the fear the Mongol invasions aroused.� So perhaps it is a little too wry and mischevious for an encyclopedia entry, but it is not an �ethnocentric taunt�. -- LamontCranston, 0:36 UTC, 25 Sep 2005

The statement is indeed a bookend to the The famous remark of the French King that he was going to fight the Tartars and would either send them back to hell or be himself sent to paradise was a sign of the fear the Mongol invasions aroused -- this can be found in Saunders, J.J. -- The History of the Mongol Conquests, among other works. The article does need referencing and cleaning up, but the blunt fact is that the Mongols destroyed the armies of Poland Humgry in a 2 day period with relatively no casalties on their part! Every military historian who has studied the era believes they would have destroyed Europe with ease, and only internal family infighting after Ogedei's death halted that invasion.old windy bear 13:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but Poland and Hungary were the easy parts of Europe so to speak. Further West there were more woods, rivers, a wetter climate and most importantly lots of fortified towns and castles. The Hungarians were rather successful against the Mongols until the catastrophic battle and similar tactics combined with better external circumstances in Germany, Italy and France would have seriously hampered the Mongols. Religious fanaticism could've been problematic, too. Not to mention the fact that with an enemy that had a supply line of 5000 miles through enemy territory (the Russian regions remained unruly) the Europeans could afford loss ratios of 3:1 or more.

In other words I'd say that the Soviet Unions outlook in 1941 was significantly worse than Europe's chances in 1241, jm2c

(btw. I removed the quintuple posting below) (82.135.66.208 19:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC))

Poland was fragmented at the time however, do not forget that the Mongols launched an unsuccessful raid in 1287, led by Talabuga and Nogai Khan. Lublin, Mazovia, Sandomierz and Sieradz were successfully raided, but the Mongols were defeated at Kraków. The force sent was not sufficient to meet the full Polish army. It burned a few small towns, and fled when the Polish army was mustered. The Poles stopped the advance of The Golden Horde at Krakow and the Turks under General Sobieski in 1643 at the Battle of Vienna. That is twice the Poles stopped the west from being overrun by Barbarians...and don't you forget it! OG from LA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.88.201.100 (talk) 20:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

How was that statement an indication of fear?

The statement is indeed a bookend to the The famous remark of the French King that he was going to fight the Tartars and would either send them back to hell or be himself sent to paradise was a sign of the fear the Mongol invasions aroused

Do you think people that are prepared to fight to the death are "fearful" people? and its hardly like people in times of war don't say such things —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.21.97 (talk • contribs) 00:42, February 15, 2006

" Yes, but Poland and Hungary were the easy parts of Europe so to speak. Further West there were more woods, rivers, a wetter climate and most importantly lots of fortified towns and castles. The Hungarians were rather successful against the Mongols until the catastrophic battle and similar tactics combined with better external circumstances in Germany, Italy and France would have seriously hampered the Mongols. Religious fanaticism could've been problematic, too. Not to mention the fact that with an enemy that had a supply line of 5000 miles through enemy territory (the Russian regions remained unruly) the Europeans could afford loss ratios of 3:1 or more."

In response to the wooded areas and wetter climate, i don't see why this would negatively affect the Mongols calvary based armies at all. Medieval Europe at the time was DOMINATED ENTIRELY by the use of heavy calvary for another hundred years. It is ridiculous to think that they wouldn't do well just because they were from Mongolia, which has a wet climate, although is more of valleys/plains. The other piece to note, is that they had, except for possibly England, the best bows you could get, and were adept at firing while riding, the heavy infantry advantage here is thus negated for the most part. Really the only thing I would think that would maybe screw up their advantages would be if they were unfamiliar in dealing with pikes, in which they would have to invade England to really see their popular use until another 50 years or more later.

But, you must remember the mongol war machine WAS built for steppe warfare were heavy cavalry would be ineffective vs. horse archers but the in dense forests of europe it's the other way around for instance, if knights were ineffective as a military unit then how did german heavy cavalry crush the mygar(spelling) light cavalry and horse archers at the battle of lechfied(spelling again)? I believe the khan would have found the holy roman empire not worth the trouble of wasting mongol lives on germany while more imminent threats lay waiting but i'm not denying that the mongols could have conquered europe i'm just saying it would'nt be easy and might end in disaster. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.221.243.4 (talk) 03:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

In response to the wooded areas and wetter climate, i don't see why this would negatively affect the Mongols calvary based armies at all. Medieval Europe at the time was DOMINATED ENTIRELY by the use of heavy calvary for another hundred years.

It affects horse archers (which were hardly used at all in Europe) and especially horse archers with composite bows because they degrade faster. It's not like they fall apart after a week, but it adds to the logistic nightmare.

It is ridiculous to think that they wouldn't do well just because they were from Mongolia, which has a wet climate, although is more of valleys/plains.

Here you're seriously misinformed. Quote from another page (just google for mongolia and climate): "The average rainfall 200-220 mm. In Mongolia there are 250 sunny days a year, often with clear cloudless skies. Therefore Mongolia is known to the world as a country of “Blue Sky”." Average rainfall in e.g. Germany is 4 times that value and it's distributed equally instead of concentrated during a few months.

The other piece to note, is that they had, except for possibly England, the best bows you could get, and were adept at firing while riding, the heavy infantry advantage here is thus negated for the most part.

European heavy cavalry was too heavily armored to go down to anything but huge amounts of arrows (there are some mid-east sources from the crusades on that) or at point blank range so we're back to the logistics issue. Especially if you lose the battle and can't recycle your old arrows. Good arrows aren't that easy to make. That's one reason the musket displaced the bow so quickly. A child can roll musket rounds.

Also you completely ignored the part where I said: "and most importantly lots of fortified towns and castles." Lots of stone fortifications where a major part of Hungary's successes against the Mongols later on and the western parts of Europe were more heavily fortified earlier. The Mongols would've had to choose between assaulting every fortified town, castle and monastery (you can't afford those kinds of losses from the sheer number of such places you found in Europe) or sieging it which nails them down and negates their speed advantage compared to European armies. Barring major tactical mistakes (there would've been a few of those but not that many. They weren't completely retarded. Sooner or later you learn) a stand up fight against European armies would've been very costly for the Mongols (once again, it's not about whether you win or lose. It's about whether you can afford your losses. The Russians lost their way to victory against Napoleon).

And finally, it's not like pikes were invented in England or Scotland. But that's besides the point. Until the tercio of the early/mid 16th century pike formations would've been very vulnerable to horse archers. It was the Spaniard's use of armor and shot that made pike squares the dominant battle formation for a hundred years (and that was also the time when Russia's border with the Mongols started to move eastward)

93.104.112.53 (talk) 01:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

P.S.: Just to make this clear: Had the Great Khan directed all his might towards Europe with the express mission to conquer it or die trying, I wouldn't wanna bet on Europe (i.e. had the Mongols relocated to Ukraine and Europe played to role of Sung China). But we are talking about a semi-conceivable military expedition by perhaps 150000 men from their base in the far east to extend the borders (i.e. Ögedei not dying when he did).

Needs cleanup and wikifying

This article is speculative, it misses references and it seems to me that it contains a lot of material present in other articles. It also needs categories. GhePeU 12:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I have begun the clean up -- references and sourcing are in place, with an external link to a great article on the Polish defeat by the Mongols -- anyone with any doubt the Europeans could have resisted a Mongol invasion in force should read it. Categories will be added also.old windy bear 13:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

In the section about the third invasion of Europe, it attempts to explain that the reason for the Mongols being unsuccssful was due to the fact that there was only 20,000 of them sent to raid Eastern Europe, but this doesn't add up considering the fact that the exact same number of Mongols claimed to have won the Battle of Legnica.

This whole area needs reexamination I think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.21.231 (talk • contribs) 00:38, March 12, 2006

Introduction -- Get Real!!!

Had the Mongols sent the forces which devastated Poland and Hungary on into the German states and France, they probably would have destroyed them as easily as they had the Rus principalities.

This states that the Mongols would have destroyed the Holy Roman Empire and France, at the height of Imperial and Frankish power! WTF? IP Address 15:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Neither was at the height of their power and the common consensus amongst historians - whether specializing in the Mongols, the Middle East or Europe - is that the Mongols would most likely have conquered Europe or at least made significant inroads had events not prevented this invasion. siarach 15:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's accurate to say that this is the common consensus among historians. It is clear that they had no trouble dealing with Poland and Hungary, but further east the Mongols would have encountered mountainous terrain, poor pastureland, and extensive fortification. The extent to which they would have been able to conquer and establish control is not clear. siafu 00:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... Yes, the Holy Roman Emperor would have been taken down by the Khan. The Crusades were not the most highly organised event in Christendom, ever?! I wonder what Genghis Khan would do in the case of Charles Martel or Charlemagne--it appears that the old Romans were ineffective at stopping the Hunnish onslaught. IP Address 22:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Well for the sake of argument i dont think either Charles Martel or his grandson would have been able to stand in the way of Chingiz Khan - far more powerful and advanced princes and empires than them/theirs had fallen to the Mongols. Of course with alternate history there can never be a right answer and who knows what would have happened - im sure few would have predicted anything other than the continuation of Mongol conquests in the build up to Ayn Jalut but obviously they were halted permanently against the odds. siarach 21:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the vast lands of Russia did not have a powerful government at the time. [But, it was stronger than under the Goths before them--which is why the Mongols could not repeat the Hunnish conquest, besides the fact that the Huns and Mongols focused on two separate areas] Everything was spaced out, with a thin infrastructure and enormous amounts of peasantry. That is why the Khans destroyed the Kievan Rus. There was no shortage of wealth and power in the West during this time, which is why the West was able to afford the continual Crusading for centuries. As always, the vastness of the Steppes only swallowed up her enemies. I believe that this is a moot point and that eventually, even the Ottoman relic known as Turkey will be no more. IP Address 23:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, historians generally avoid counterfactuals. There's no way to know what could have happened.Fokion (talk) 02:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Its a lot of guessing and speculations here. Ok the mongols crushed the Song dynasty and the muslim kingdoms in the east. But they were stopped both in Egypt and Japan. Why is it so unthinkable that they would have been stopped by the germans that was far more advanced than the russians? One of the reasons why the other countries in east fall, was because the mongols destroyed the irrigation systems, what was there to destroy in Europe? Open plains was the ultimate area for their battles, not dense european woods. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.237.216.124 (talk) 18:22, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Invasion of Hungary

The whole paragraph should be reformulated. The outcome of the campaign is somehow mixed with the outcome of the battle of Sajo/Muhi. The battle was lost but the war won. According to chinese sources the Hungarian campaign was the blodiest for the Mongols. The King was not caught, the resistance in the strongholds wasn't broken and the occupation was a great failure for the Mongols. However the Mongols killed 25% of the population the Kingdom strenghten in the next 100 year (2 month after the Mongol invasion Hungarian army reached Wienna and reconquered 3 counties). The Mongol army were withdrawn, no garissions were left behind (contrary to Russia) the ellection was just a pretext: Batu was not recognised as legal heir of the Great Khan. Moreover after the battle in 1241 they stopped at Danube. Why? Was a river obstacle for a light cavalry army?? --fz22 11:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

your comment is absolutely wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.152.49 (talk • contribs) 03:42, December 5, 2006

feel free to share your arguments. BTW the story with the Hungarians' laager doesn't go togehter either. This technique was invented by the Hussites two century later. --fz22 09:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd certainly like to know where it is stated that Hungarian campaign was particularly bloody for Mongols compared to Khwarezmian one (where they actually lost at least one major battle), or campaign against Song Empire (which took 40 years). It seems dubious anyway that Batu - weakest of the Mongol Khans - would plan another major invasion just one year after he had conquered his own - still unconsolitated - realm (ie. Russia). As for why Mongols stopped for summer - likely to prepare for winter, which was their preferred campaign season. Lets not forget that Batu's own Mongol contingent numbered only around 4000 troops, of which he is said to have lost around 30 in Battle of Mohi. Extrapolating from there, Mongol casualties in that battle were perhaps 1%. --Mikoyan21 (talk) 00:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

                                                                                                    This whole section is written out of order, I do not want to take the time to reformulate it. It looks like a high school student put his historical essay on here. This is savage writong.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.210.46.190 (talk) 22:32, 3 August 2012 (UTC) 

Second Mongol Invasion of Hungary (1284)

What the hell is this?

"the Mongols losing much of their invading force due to the use of combat trained moon rats, from the moon. "

Combat trained moon rats, from the moon? I'm no history buff, but I don't think that happened. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.101.110.166 (talk • contribs) 16:10, September 6, 2006

You clearly don't know very much about history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.118.0.110 (talk • contribs) 13:10, March 25, 2007

image source

What is the source of the image accompanying this article? It does not seem very authentic.

It would be better to use a historic image. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Txensen (talk • contribs) 15:49, August 23, 2006

Prayer

I read somewhere that the Christians of the time added to some prayer (Paternoster?) "and deliver us fromthe warth of the Mongols". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.20.17.84 (talk • contribs) 05:16, September 25, 2006

It may be that they added it to a prayer, but I am pretty sure it wasn't the Pater Noster (the Lord's Prayer). --Legis (talk - contributions) 17:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Fiction

Has a reversal of this piece of history been the basis of some relevant piece of alternate history? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.20.17.84 (talk • contribs) 05:18, September 25, 2006

Strong concerns

This entire article is a pile of crap. How do we get this whole thing completly rewritten? Its a disgrace to wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmyjimjam (talk • contribs) 00:13, June 18, 2007

Disputed

Parts of this article appear to be quite good, but I have tagged the article as disputed, since it's not clear if the above concerns have been addressed. I also agree that the article needs to do a much better job of sourcing. Parts are also very confusing. I haven't gone through it in detail myself, but I did notice right off that the lead section doesn't even make a clear distinction that the attacks were being made by the Golden Horde as opposed to just "the Mongols". I think that this article can eventually be quite good, but enough concerns have been raised that I think we need to flag it as disputed until it gets a thorough going-over. --Elonka 04:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, those concerns that were actionable have been fixed. Obviously, "concerns" of the form put forward in the last two headings above this one can't be addressed, because they don't name any specific problems. So which specific issues were it that made you add the disputed tag? Not saying it's necessarily wrong, just that at a first glance, I can't find any real dispute. Note that in that region, the Golden Horde during its time pretty much were "the Mongols". Maybe a "cleanup" tag would be more appropriate? --Latebird 06:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Contradictory

At the beginning, there is a sourced statement that Subutai wanted to attack Austria but his plans were interrupted by Ogedei Khan. After an unsourced claim in the part about the invasion of Hungary that the Hungarian resistance counted for nothing, it states that the Mongols were never interested in expanding Westward. This is not sourced while the statement to the contrary is. I also believe this has a strong anti-Hungarian POV, without sourcing the statements that support this sentiment.Shield2 05:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Time to close this dispute?

Most, if not all, of the complaints, some two years old, have long been addressed and solved. Keeping the neutrality dispute badge on the page is misleading. DJProFusion (talk) 20:54, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

    I disagree - two years later, and this article has severe problems.  HammerFilmFan (talk) 19:58, 15 July 2010 (UTC)HammerFilmFan

Mongol invasion of Russia should be described.

--79.111.179.162 (talk) 06:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It's totally preposterous to write about the topic as if Kievan Rus was not in Europe. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I second, although Rus was always on the Europe-Asian border, so it likely belongs to both topics. Do note that we have Mongol invasion of Rus'.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Rus is actually quite a bit away from the Europe-Asia border, there are Finnic, Ugrian as well Turkic peoples filling ina big fat barrier between Rus and the geographical definition of Asia. Germany is closer to Asia than most of Rus (take a ruler to a map and compare the distance between the most easterly major Rus settlement to Asia, Murom, and run the same distance from the Bosphorus). Bulgaria, Serbia, etc, are a great deal closer, and if Rus is half-Asian then there's no reason not to declare France, Spain and Italy half African. ;) If you think about it, it's not really a conceptualization that makes any sense until the 17th century onwards. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

In medieval age all Orthodox states (except Constantinople) were considered as Asian countries. The Ural-border theory is a modern age idea. --Celebration1981 (talk) 18:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this holds for Bulgaria. I also don't think the Teutonic Knights on the Peipus lake thought they fought against Asians. Yaan (talk) 10:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

What is real European or not, it was considered by western scientist of the era--Celebration1981 (talk) 13:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC).

Can you give an example of one such western scientist of the era who said that Russia is in Asia? Maybe you could also indent your contributions, this makes it much easier to understand who replies to whom. Yaan (talk) 13:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

An interesting point, and it's always good to remember the difference between Rus and Russia. On another level - and I agree it's not relevant in this particular discussion - it is interesting to compare cultural diffs. There is an interesting section on those in the mentioned article.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Mongol invasion of actual territories of Romania should be described

In 1241, when the Mongol Invasions occured, Transylvania, a part of the actual Romania's territory, was part of the Hungarian Empire. Other parts of the actual Romania are Walachia, Moldavia and Dobrogea. The Mongol invasion affected first of all Moldova and Wallachia and had a big impact on the Romanian history and culture and had destroyed all cultural and economical records from that time. The main target of the Golden Horde was the Hungarian Empire. The Romanian's crops and goods seem to have been a source of suply for the Golden Horde. Also tens of thousands of Romanians lost their lives trying to defend the territories from the Mongols

• see Romania in the Early Middle Ages ♫Razool

Modova and Walachia didn't exist in the XIII century. Cumans formed state on these territories. Look Oxford and other maps about Europe in XIII century. http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&um=1&sa=1&q=europe+13th+century&aq=1&oq=europe+13 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.111.185.112 (talk) 14:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

there was no rumania, nor rumanians back then. mongol invasion destroyed rumanian cultural and economical records from that time??? maybe they never existed. rumanias came later to settle the areas left uninhabited by mongols. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.21.185.130 (talk) 11:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Picture

This is not the battle for Vladimir, this is arriving of Yaroslav from Kiev to Vladimir AFTER INVASION![1]--Maximalist (talk) 08:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Is anybody here?--Maximalist (talk) 07:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Western Europe saved?

How was western Europe "saved" when the Mongols' invasion propagated the Black Death which led to a huge death toll in Western Europe?216.254.172.202 (talk) 17:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

This is just not true. The Mongol invasion was in the 1240s, the Black Death was in the 1340s. While I don't doubt the transcontinental contacts established under Mongol rule helped it spread, are there sources that claim a disease of this kind could not have spread from China to Europe before the 13th/14th century?

And I don't think the Black Death destroyed any major cities, as the Mongols did in Russia and Central Asia. Yaan (talk) 18:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The Mongols were still involved in Europe in the 1300s and according to Black_Death#Plague_migration, they likely spread the disease. While it's great that the Western European buildings were not destroyed, it's quite misleading to call Western Europe "saved" when there was such a catastrophic death toll that resulted from the Mongol armies' movements.207.112.59.175 (talk) 01:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

And I though the death toll resulted from microbes, unsanitatary conditions and trade. The sources at the Black death article do not seem to be in particularly good shape. But it seems to imply it was not only Mongol armies who spread the siege, but also Genoese traders, merchants along the silk road, a lot of infected Europeans etc.Yaan (talk) 14:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I changed "saved" to "avoided Mongol attacks" in the latter part of the sentence. It's OK to represent the subjective Hungarian view using the word "saved" if that is what they believe, but when counterbalancing with a more general and objective view in the latter part of the sentence a more neutral term is needed. It's not by any means an established fact that the rest of Europe was helpless and in need of some external force/event to save it. This sentence deals with a series of battles that never happened, all we can do is speculate. Abvgd (talk) 10:14, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Probe

Batu sent 2 columns to Poland as vanguards when he was in modern Belarus (Please not confused with Baidar and Orda). They couldn't be big detachment because European sources say they were just the Mongol vanguard--Enerelt (talk) 06:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

THIS ENTIRE ARTICLE WAS DEVISED BY A HUNGARIAN

- VAGUE STATEMENTS REFERENCING ARBITRARY EVENTS OF SUCCESS IN PART OF THE HUNGARIAN ARMY DURING THE MONGOL CAMPAIGN ... ALL THROUGHOUT THE ARTICLE IN RANDOM PLACES. WITHOUT A SINGLE CITATION NOR REFERENCE.

- AN ABSOLUTE DEARTH OF REFERENCES AND CITATIONS SUPPORTING THE MANY SO CALLED EVENTS OF EUROPEAN SUCCESSES IN DEFENDING THEMSELVES AGAINST THE MONGOLS.

- THIS WHOLE ARTICLE IS FRAMED IN A STORYTELLING FORMAT AND IS COMPLETELY DISORGANIZED , IT NEEDS TO HAVE MORE OF A FACTUAL BASIS AND HAVE SPECIFIC REFERENCES.

KEEP THE HUNGARIAN IN CHECK . THIS ARTICLE IS AN ABSOLUTE TRAVESTY AND PERPETUATES THE COMMON STEREOTYPE OF WIKIPEDIA ARTICLES AS NOT BEING CREDIBILITY. Wernergerman (talk) 23:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

WHERE ON EARTH ARE THE CITATIONS , AND WHAT'S WITH THE VAGUE REFERENCES TO " SOME " , " MANY " , " HE " ...

Most of these strange inclusions support statements that emphasize Hungarian glory more or less ... before you know it this Hungarian is going to rewrite the entire Mongol history and Ghengis Khan will be referenced as a German - hey , after all , the Hungarians managed to twist history so that they all believe that Atilla is Caucasian ..... Wernergerman (talk) 23:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the sentiments of the commenter above.

I agree with the sentiments of the commenter above. Many of the articles in which Hungary is even vaguely mentioned seem to be somehow puffed up by over exaggerating Hungarian efforts / forces. Check the articles on the Middle Ages and many articles concerning battles of the Hungarian army. I too think it (and all the rest of them) needs to be completely rewritten. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jensonmorton (talk • contribs) 23:52, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

yeah this is complete garbage, referring to major Russian principalities like Kiev and Ryazan as "miscellaneous tribes of less organized proto-Russian people??" what the fuck 99.255.117.65 (talk) 06:45, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

THIS PART IS FAKE

"More than 200 years before the Mongol invasion, the Hungarian army (descendants of the Magyars) was based on light cavalry. An interesting fact is that the former tactics of the Hungarian army were similar to those of the Mongols, but had been largely forgotten by 1241. One of the major light cavalry tactics was a sudden rush on the enemy position. However, if the enemy held (or reformed), light cavalry was insufficient to achieve a victory. Another significant tactic was a feigned retreat, in which the light cavalry would attack the enemy and then withdraw, apparently fleeing. The enemy would ideally pursue and become disorganized, leaving themselves open to attack by units hidden in reserve. The light cavalry would then reform and attack the flanks or rear of the enemy forces. The Hungarians stopped using these tactics during the 11th century.[why?]

In the late 11th century, the majority of the Hungarian army consisted of mounted sergeants (heavy knights) and infantry. The Hungarian allies, some of whom still utilized the light cavalry combat style, included the Cumans, who had settled down in Hungary not long before the Mongol invasion. They were tasked with providing the light cavalry force in the Hungarian army. However tension erupted when Mongol troops first broke into Hungary: The Hungarians, frustrated by their own helplessness, took revenge on the Cumans, whom they accused of being Mongol spies. "

The reality: 1. Hungarians and Magyars are the same thing. 2. Hungarians didn't forget steppe tactics. This is an old, denied theory. They had vast number of horse archers even in the time of the battle of Nicopolis, 1397. Who have the time read A tatárjárás by B. Szabó János. 3. "frustrated by their own helplessness, took revenge on the Cumans" Real reasons: the Cumans were violent against local people and their nomadic lifestyle was hurtful for the Hungarian peasants but the king favoured the Cumans. Second the Mongol forces used the Cuman troops from the steppe as part of their tactics and that's why people tought them spies. Csatádi (talk) 14:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the contested section. Feel free to add the correct info into the article with reliable sources. - M0rphzone (talk) 10:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Hungary 1241.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Hungary 1241.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do?
	Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 07:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Maps Section Empty

I notice that the article has a section labeld, "Maps," but that seems to be empty. I looked through the article revision history but a cursory check didn't show any activity on that section. Is someone planning on adding maps? If not, may I suggest removing the section?

A quick search for images of "map of Mongol invasion of Europe" leads to a plethora of links, not all of which are on Wikipedia. Perhaps one might add reference links to some of these external sites? Sbeitzel (talk) 02:18, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Esztergom did not repelled the Mongols

"the Mongols claimed control of Hungary, they could not occupy fortified cities such as Fehérvár, Esztergom, Veszprém, Tihany, Győr, Pannonhalma, Moson, Sopron, Vasvár, Újhely, Zala, Léka, Pozsony, Nyitra, Komárom, Fülek and Abaújvár" All Historical authors and expert will agree that Esztergom was destroyed by the Mongols, in fact that is the main reason why King Bela IV has to move its Capital to Buda because the city cannot be defended. please change it, it is not historically accurate.