Talk:Battle of Mohi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Factual errors[edit]

Dear InFairness!

Thanks for correcting my grammer mistakes. My English is far from perfect.

But:

1. The Tartars systematicly destroyed Eastern Hungary (frmo Transylvania to the Danube line), but they didn't do this in Transdanubia. In western Hungary the Tartars only chased king Béla, and plundered only in their way, but not systematicly.

2. There were local organized forces, but these were small and they were unable to fight in open battle. These forces defended fortified points. (according to contemporary royal charters)

3. Trau (the modern Trogir) and Tengerfehérvár (present day Biograd no moru) are different towns. King Béla seek refugee in Trau.

4. We have no records of serious guerilla warfare.

5. Connecting the death of the Great khan and the Mongol withdrawal is a popular, but obsolote theory. Latest researches talk about heavy losses, lack of pasture instead.

(The election ofthe Great khan was only 1246, and Batu didn't take part. It is also questionable that the news of Ogodei death reached Hungary so soon.) see: D. Sinor - Mongols in the West (Journal of Asian History v33. n. 1. 1999)

6. The Hungarian army leaders did not forget the tactic of steppe nomads. It is also a popular, but false view. Hungarians demonstrably used these kind of tactics continuously before and after the Mongol Invasion. see: J. B. Szabó - Gondolatok a XI-XIV. századi magyar hadviselésről in Hadtörteneti Közlemények 1/2001. http://epa.oszk.hu/00000/00018/00016/03bszabo_en.htm (summary in English)

Please, restore the former text!

Bye, Raider


Dear, InFairness!

I think I waited enough for your answer. Tomorrow I will correct the above mistakes again. bye, Raider


Can we seriously stop with all these nationalists and their bias, they seem to riddle nearly all articles pertaining to the Mongol conquests.

And yes, the Mongol withdrawal is due to the death of Ogodei confirmed by a literal contemporary primary source who personally met Subutai, Batu and Guyuk, Rashid Al-Din's account on the other hand is a secondary source written nearly fifty years after the facts, this is not a theory and it can't be obsolete unless there is a more authoritative contemporary source which I don't think exists.

1246 was the date of the crowning, Batu didn't return for the election/crowning event itself but for the election process which took several years ending in 1246. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Contolonan (talkcontribs) 20:35, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Need more references[edit]

References should be provided for statements such as: "[t]he Hungarian army as well as irregulars from the countryside proved dangerous foes and Mongol losses were not insignificant". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hu Gadarn (talkcontribs)

This statement was not in the original version. Should we delete it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.183.150.41 (talkcontribs)

Besides that, there are great swaths of text without citation. Borders on plagio'. HammerFilmFan (talk) 14:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)HammerFilmFan

The lack of references in the Aftermath section makes this article completely obnoxious. It says a whole bunch of information that is novel to an English reader (perhaps not to those who can make use of Hungarian sources). Yet, the author of that section clearly thinks that we should take his word on this information with absolutely no citations! This is obnoxious enough to call for the whole section to be deleted unless the author can support his version, which differs wildly from anything D.O. Morgan, Halperin, or Sinor ever wrote on the aftermath of Mohi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.155.56.25 (talk) 09:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Summary Table should be provided[edit]

The article should begin with a summary table of the conflict as per other Wikipedia descriptions of military engagements (e.g. see Battle of the Somme). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hu Gadarn (talkcontribs)

Name spelling[edit]

Correct me if I'm wrong but is it not spelled "Muhi"? This is currently the modern spelling of the town in Hungary. I should know, it is my surname. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.28.215.246 (talkcontribs)

No it was originally called Mohi. Later this village was destroyed during the Ottoman wars. A modern neighbouring village change its name to Muhi to commemrate the old village. Muhi is a corrupted form. (But You are right in Hungarian historiography Mohi apperears as Muhi by historiographic tradition.) Raider

POV Bias[edit]

I don't know how intentional or otherwise it was, but in the 'The Battle' section, the Mongols are a) referred to several times as 'tartars' (I was under the impression that this is at least a mildly derogatory term, and in any case the separate Wikipedia article shows that a different spelling is the norm) and b) their army is called a 'horde'. Given the famous levels of organisation, discipline, training and general efficiency of Mongol armies at this point in history, I think the term 'horde' is unfair in that it expresses a stereotypical Westerner view of the Mongols as barbarians, and simply does not adequately describe the military formations in question. Would appreciate further examination of this terminology. 172.188.4.114 17:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Horde was the name of the Mongolian army at that time, they named it like that (e.g. Golden Horde). Not to use it because of the word's current meaning would be no NPOV, but simply stupid. Tatars were the name used for them widely at that time and referred still, thou there were different ethnic groups. --81.183.171.16 18:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually Horde means 'Ordu' (regular army) in Turkish. Possibly that's why mongol army was called a 'Horde' Ati7 07:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


I agree with the POV BIAS. Calling the mongols "tartars" smells of ignorance and European prejudice. The tartars were an entirely different group of people conquered by the nomadic mongols. Calling them thus is not something that should EVER appear in an Encyclopedia. Secondly, this whole article seems like nothing more than the battle of Mohi Heath, quite possibly one of the greatest strategic victories in history, told through the eyes of the defeated polish army.

It reads like a explanations of why the Poles managed to lose, rather than an account of the military brilliance of Subudai (whose victory is comparable to Hannibal at Cannae) or the actual role or tactics of the mongol army. Rather, it seems to point the finger at who messed up on the polish side and lost the war. I think this is important mainly because Mohi Heath is considered one of the greatest military victories, and a work of brilliant generalship. Indeed, a group of nomadic horse archers (lightly armed) faced off against chain mailed and armour plated European Knights (the very best in the world in the Knight's Templar) and won. Won convincingly, and totally.

Persianlor

Oops. You are blaming the author calling the Mongols Tartars, while yourself continously call the Hungarians Polish? :D
To be ontopic, I can assure you, that the word Tartar is not a tiny bit derogatory. Why would it be? Is there any sign of using the word Tartar in a derogatory meaning, anywhere in Europe? It's only an 800 years old lingual heritage of a historic confusion. In Hungary, the invading Mongols were traditionally (but also mistakenly) thought to be Tartars, and exclusively in the context of the invasion, they are still called both names, although in every other aspect the Mongol people are referred to as Mongols.
In Hungarian, the invasion of Hungary is specifically called Tatárjárás, which means "Tartar plague". (See the detailed, and well referenced Hungarian Wikipedia article: [1].) I agree that this usage of words should be clarified in the article, because it is misleading as it is now, but is no way POV.
Also, I wouldn't consider the battle of Muhi as one of the greatest victories of all time, particularly because the Mongol army was far superior in numbers. Light cavalry archers (the Hungarians, to be specific) defeated numerically superior(!) armoured western armies several times approx. 300 years before, so the Mongol victory at Mohi is anything but unprecedented, and wasn't against the odds. It's also shouldn't be even compared to the battle of Cannae as the winner Carthaginian army was also far much smaller than the Roman. Pannonius (talk) 08:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I support the ideea that the article is POV. The Tartar-Mongol confusion is indeed very old in European history and it is true that Hungarian, Romanian and other sources continue to use Tartars and Mongols interchangeably when reffering to the Middle Ages. This is much less the case with English language sources, a simple search with Google Scholar should prove my point. Most English language sources and almost all native-English speaking historians use Mongol invariably. The Hungarian term for the invasion is therefore competely irrelevent to the English language article here.

Moreover, the article actually commends the way in which the Hungarians set their camp and further stresses this aspect by stating that it is unlikely that the Mongols wanted to cross the river and attack a fortified camp. Actually the disposition of the Hungarian camp was catastrophical and led Batu to compare the Hungarians to "cattle pent up in narrow stable" (See Turnbull, The Mongols, page 34). Subutai's success was partly due to a cramped Hungarian encampment, easy to incircle, and with tent ropes slowing troop movement. Furthermore, the article ignores to mention that if the Hungarians remained long ignorent of the Mongol camp being so close to their own it's because the latter was concealed with vegetation.

Concerning previous edits on this talk page I feel the need to stress that Mongols were not just horse archers, they had shock cavalrymen wearing heavy scale (waterproofed with pitch) and riding armoured horses, wielding hooked spears, expert in fighting other cavalry. They were also good engineers which greatly contributed to their victory at Mohi. All in all the battle was certainly not unprecendented and if it was won it's precisely because the Mongols were a well organised, complete and highly copetent millitary force and not just a goup of nomadic horse-archers. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 08:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Tatars were an eastern Mongolian-Tungu group defeated/incorporated into the Mongol Empire. Tartars comes from the Greek word for a Hell-like bottomless pit - Europeans saw the seemingly unstoppable Mongol hordes as nothing less than an invasion from the underworld's demons - hence the term. HammerFilmFan (talk) 14:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)HammerFilmFan

Tartar was the same term used by Sung envoys in 1221 to Genghis Khan and Muqali's bases. They said these people are called the Tata. The Persian Juwaini calls them Tartars. In Russia, a conquered state (that should have known better) they were called Tartars. Armenians and Georgians write about them as Tartars, as did the India based Juzjani, and the Arabic writing Ibn al-Athir. If you guys think their being called Tartars is a European slur toward them, you are grossly misinformed. More than likely, the group we call Mongols and/or Tartars just opted for a name switch somewhere along the line. Or it's a massive trans-eurasian conspiracy to offend the Mongols by calling them the archaic greek word for hell. Knowing the Mongols, I'd say they just decided they wanted a better name than Tata, so they switched to an alternative name, and got bent out of shape when everyone in the world didn't switch with them on cue. Like Beyonce. And no, I'm not being facious.

No Sung envoys called the mongols tartars, this is beyond stupid. Deleted this, you clearly don't know what you're talking about.

File:Hungary 1241.png Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

Icon Now Commons orange.svg 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) 07:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

"Ineffectiveness of European style warfare against Mongols"[edit]

A word-for-word insertion of a 2003 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica has been entered into this article. An identical passage has been added into the Battle of Liegnitz article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Legnica). Exactly what purpose it serves here is uncertain. It is also misleading, since the Hungarian army was anything but a "traditional european-style" army - the majority of the cavalry were likely the so-called "castle warriors", lightly armed melee cavalry drawn from the royal system of small wooden castles. It was only after the mongol invasion that king Bela reformed the hungarian royal army, adding more heavy cavalry elements. Any reading of Kosztolnyik, Z. J. (1996). Hungary in the Thirteenth Century. East European Monographs; No. CDXXXIX. New York: Columbia University Press or Engel, Pal et.al (2005) The realm of St.Stephen. Ib.Tauris. - see the page reference to Kosztolnyik provided lower in this article.

I will delete the insertion as irrellevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.55.188 (talk) 05:46, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


Vandalism[edit]

Okay, I know that my edit was kind of sort of vandalism. But consider the facts. Someone had written that a certain event occurred on March 15 – year unstated. So, theoretically, you were reading the article and a year is identified in a previous section, and you are supposed to know that the reference is to that same year, and not just the year, but March 15, not March 14, not March 16, but March 15. So I added the time. Can anyone find a source to dispute my time of day? Like hello? Did someone Google that (the March 15 date) and read it in the Mongolian Times archive? And which calendar? The one we use today in the West? I do not think that even existed in the 1200s. Am I mistaken?

In any event, I know if I would've brought it up on the talk page the Owner of the article would not even have considered an edit to do away with the logical fallacy of false precision. So I'm not going to get into an edit war. I just hoped that bring it to the attention of someone in a sarcastic way, but still in good faith, would be more convincing.

By the way, can someone tell me how to respond directly to the person who makes a revert and leaves me a message about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Da5id403 (talkcontribs) 19:22, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

22:00 Mongol Standard Time?[edit]

Somebody wrote that a battle that took place 1000 years ago began at "22:00" without further specifying whether this is Greenwich mean time, Pacific standard Time, Mongol standard Time, etc. In point of fact, there is no citation and there can be no citation because nobody can know at what hour something happened before people had universally recognized time zones, clocks, or even calendars. It is ridiculous and petty to revert my deletion of some contributors/owner's belief that something took place at a specific time of the day hundreds of years ago. It just makes Wikipedia look stupid.Da5id403 (talk) 21:57, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Yep, I fully agree with you: stating that the battle started at 22:00 looks strange especially without any sources. But it seems that you were the one who (re)introduced it [2], that's why I have deleted it [3]. The situation is especially strange, since you reintroduced this "22:00" claim again by undoing my edit [4] with a comment "removing unsourced content". Are you sure that you know how Wikipedia works (technically)? Cheers, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 13:36, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
I forgot my original complaint was the date and I added the time. <:-| I think I am permanently cured of sarcastic vandalism to make a point.Da5id403 (talk) 23:42, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Mohi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:04, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Still Blatant POV Problems[edit]

I don't know why but every article on the Mongol Invasion of Europe seems to have a blatant pro-European bias (I'm a German historian, so this is probably even more ridiculous to those who aren't European). Given we probably don't have to worry about many Mongolian english speakers, there needs to be a consistent effort to watch out for these Euro nationalist edits that seem to crop up everywhere, since it's already a big problem in the sources.

This extends to the negative events of the Mongol side as well, which are usually omitted. I added the Chinese and Secret History accounts of the banquet feud between the Mongol commanders, but there are probably more Mongol-side events that have been ignored and I'm forgetting at the moment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.247.69.66 (talk) 08:33, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

For one thing, though the numbers are by no means certain, it is highly disingenuous to use the estimate Hungarian army at 10,000 men when we have Juvaini (History of World Conqueror, p.270) directly stating that the Mongol reconnaissance (the evidence used to support the 10k claim) estimated they were outnumbered 2:1. The Mongol's used 10,000 men as their reconaissance force, so the rest of their army must be at least as large if not larger than that 10,000 (so minimum 20,000). Think about it logically: why would Subutai make such a long feigned retreat, like he did at the Kalka River in 1223 where he was outnumbered 80,000 to 20,000, if he in fact significantly outnumbered the Hungarians. Instead we are supposed to believe that this master strategist preferred to cross a river, then attack back across the same river through a choke point in an elaborate plan to destroy an army much weaker than his in a straight up fight. Why bother? Instead he simply could have halted in the plains on the southwest side of the Sajo or much earlier, encircled the Hungarians, and avoided all this trouble. The entire point of the Mohi strategy was to surprise the Hungarians.

In addition, after the battle Hungary possessed no united force for the remainder of the Mongol invasion: their army must have been irreparably destroyed. The Mongols did indeed defeat other Hungarian forces before Mohi, such as the Archbishop's force and the troops at Oradea, but Mohi is given much more attention in the Yuan Shi than any other battle, so it must have been much more significant. One has a hard time believing that if Hungary is one of the most powerful forces in Europe, their army is that weak.

Second, some parts of the article seem to only be here to assuage hurt feelings. The part about the second invasion of Hungary and Hungarian reforms belongs in an article about the Mongol invasions of Europe and Hungary, not about one specific battle. The Battle of Austerlitz doesn't have a section about Archduke Charles reforms, the 1809 invasion, or the battle of Aspern Essling.

I'm going to make some of these edits, but I don't have Thomas of Spalato or Roger of Torre Maggiore with me at the moment, so it'd be great if others could fill in the holes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.247.69.66 (talk) 23:09, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

As a historian, surely you realize at this point the Magyar army was hardly "weak" - it was the strongest in continental Europe - the problem was it was outclassed! The Mongols at this point were a superb mounted military force with awesome discipline and excellent intelligence agents with strategies that Europeans were unfamiliar with and with a viciousness in battle that was unsettling to even hardened European (and Asian) soldiers. They inflicted significant losses on the Mongols, but not in numbers compared to their almost complete annihilation.50.111.46.18 (talk) 11:55, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Slight addition: I thought the point of wiki is to present a balanced point of view, not emphasize the extreme end that only a minority has argued for. It would be similarly disingenuous to portray the Hungarians as having a 100,000 man army at Mohi, though some 20th century scholars have argued such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.247.69.66 (talk) 23:13, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

If it seems written from a primarily European POV, it's probably because that's what most English-language sources focus on, and this is an English wiki. The full text of the Yuan Shi hasn't even been translated into English as far as I'm aware. Thanks for those additions from the Yuan Shi, by the way.
On numbers: I notice you are eager to accept Mongol claims of their enemy's numbers uncritically (in this case a man who held positions in the Ilkhanate government and wrote under their auspices), but not the enemy's claim of the Mongols' numbers. That seems awfully disingenuous, given that we have a chronicle from a neutral source that reports lower numbers.
The numbers you claim for Kalka are also drastically exaggerated. Modern Russian historians generally don't believe that Kievan Rus could field 80,000 men in one battle ever (Khrustalev calculates a figure of 15,000 for example) given that all those states together (including those not present at Kalka) had a population either three times greater than or less than twice as great as contemporary England (estimates vary from 2.5 to 4.5 million for the latter and 7-8 million for the Rus') and were much sparser. The primary sources for Kalka only report around 10,000 losses in a battle where the vast majority of men were supposed to have died. This makes your neutrality on the subject doubtful given that you consistently support the highest possible figures for any force opposing the Mongols despite some of them being outright demographic impossibilities. Like the Hungarians with a population of 2 million and low density having an army of 50,000+ at one battle... in an era where the King of England with a denser richer population of 2.5 million has trouble raising 10,000 men, something Sverdrup noted in his article. Where the largest battles of the Christian coalition efforts in Iberia and the Levant involve under 20,000 men. Even 200 years later, a coalition consisting of basically all of eastern Europe (with multi-folds greater population and wealth than 13th century Hungary) couldn't even muster close to 50,000 men at Grunwald.
The Mongols using a particular tactic is not evidence that they were outnumbered, rather evidence that they wanted to win with as few losses as possible (or possibly that they had faulty intelligence). Moreover, guessing at either side's numbers based on your interpretation of their behavior is not the job of a Wikipedia editor. You're also wrong in saying that the Hungarians had no soldiers left after Mohi. Rather than being entirely defenseless for the next generation, a few years later King Bela was able to muster enough soldiers to defeat the untouched army of Frederick II of Austria and Styria, and recover the border provinces he took. This is after many Hungarian forces were destroyed in detail before ever reaching the battle at Mohi, and also considering that Bela had a bad relation with his magnates and wouldn't have been able to muster his full strength as effectively as some other rulers. All this considered, the idea that the Hungarians significantly outnumbered the 20,000+ Mongol force at Mohi (where they lost the bulk of their force) gets flat-out ridiculous, and should be taken as an exaggeration on par with the Yuan Shi claiming that the Japanese had 102,000 men in 1274. How many men did the Hungarians supposedly have in total in 1241? 60,000? 80,000? Why was this poor and sparse kingdom able to achieve a military mobilization rate higher than any of its neighbors? Why weren't the kings of England, France, the HRE, etc. throwing around hundreds of thousands of troops with their multi-folds greater population bases?
I agree that the article was very bloated and included parts that shouldn't have been there, and was planning on sweeping out those parts soon anyway. It was written like that because prior to a week ago there was no English Wikipedia article for the invasion of Hungary in general, so everything possibly relating to it was shoved into this one page. It looks more concise now.--Nihlus1 (talk) 23:46, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Utter nonsense, numbers on the battle field and overall population are not correlated in feudal society. During the hundred year war, England had an approximate population of 2 million and France >15+ million yet french armies were at most 2 times larger. It is perfectly acceptable for a population of 2 million to field, there are many examples of similar sized nations such as Carthage fielding such numbers.
Furthermore, given your post history it is obvious that you are one of the "Euro nationalist" editors that this historian referred to, please do not vandalize this page any further.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Casualties[edit]

Despite User:Asteriset's personal opinion of "reference works", Spencer C. Tucker is an academic military historian published by ABC-CLIO, a reputable publisher.

Also, The Mongol Empire: A Historical Encyclopedia, by Timothy May, page 103, also states the Mongols took heavy casualties at Sajo River/Mohi.

I am seeing no real reason not to mention this in the article. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:19, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with opinion, you've been warned for your repeated edits without sources (65.99.98.199) and using non academical work. No one cares who Spencer C. Tucker is, this particular work is not academic in nature.Asteriset (talk) 01:25, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Excuse me? I am not the IP. As for "academical work", Frank McLynn is a professor of Literature, not history or Mongol history. So much for "academical work"! Also,
  • "No one cares who Spencer C. Tucker is, this particular work is not academic in nature", actually according to Wikipedia:RS it is important who Tucker is. And it is just your opinion that "this particular work is not academic in nature".
So far neither of these IPs are in Kansas. Where is your proof? --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:38, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Secondary sources are preferred over tertiary sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary,_secondary_and_tertiary_sources Estarena (talk) 12:34, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Sounds like removing information you don't like. Guess you didn't read this part;
  • "Reliable tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, and may be helpful in evaluating due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other."
And if you want to start "discussing" sources, Frank McLynn has zero specialization concerning Mongols, Mongol history, history of this time period. Odd you missed that. Perhaps you should take your own advice;
What is even more interesting is you removed the Tucker source, yet in your haste you missed,
  • The Oxford Encyclopedia of Medieval Warfare and Military Technology
  • Artillery and warfare during the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, Vol. 8
  • Encyclopedia of Mongolia and the Mongol Empire
Questionable sources:
  • What on Earth Happened?: The Complete Story of the Planet, Life, and People from the Big Bang to the Present Day
  • Dateline Mongolia: An American Journalist in Nomad's Land
  • Commanders
So I am curious just how you decided to remove a source, that is written by an academic historian compared to the three questionable sources, compounded with your decision to remove a tertiary source which was confined to the Tucker source, when three other sources are tertiary sources as well. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:56, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Seems you can't really read, take my advice into account and read over the rules : "Reliable tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, and may be helpful in evaluating due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other." In this context, the only contradiction is between your tertiary source against a secondary source.

And if you want to start "discussing" sources, Frank McLynn has zero specialization concerning Mongols, Mongol history, history of this time period. Odd you missed that. Perhaps you should take your own advice

That's rich, especially when Spencer C. Tucker has equally zero specialization concerning Mongols, Mongol history, history of this time period and the book is basically an introductory overview of world history. Come back when you find something more serious.Estarena (talk) 19:15, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

What is even more interesting is you removed the Tucker source, yet in your haste you missed The Oxford Encyclopedia of Medieval Warfare and Military Technology Artillery and warfare during the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, Vol. 8 Encyclopedia of Mongolia and the Mongol Empire What on Earth Happened?: The Complete Story of the Planet, Life, and People from the Big Bang to the Present Day Dateline Mongolia: An American Journalist in Nomad's Land Commanders

Let's see the first isn't used on the page. The second one is about something very specific I don't have any other sources on the subject and it's not conflicting with other accounts. The third is basing itself from the account of the Yuan shi which is included in the text. 4th and 5th are just speculations but the info is also mentionned in an academical paper (superfluous at best) (ref 36) Last one is trivial in nature Estarena (talk) 19:31, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Spencer C. Tucker is a military historian, miss that part? OOPs guess so. And still does not explain your actions, no surprise there.
  • Perilous Glory: The Rise of Western Military Power, John France, page 144, "After heavy casualties at Liegnitz and Mohi the Mongols could not advance into Europe..."
FYI, John France is Professor Emeritus and Director of the Callaghan Centre for Conflict Studies at Swansea University, and a former Visiting Professor at the United States Military Academy, West Point. A specialist on the history of crusading and warfare.
*"Let's see the first isn't used on the page."
They all are used in this article. Can't read?
  • "The traditional figure is 25%, but László Veszprémy, taking account of recent scholarship, says "some fifteen percent". "Muhi, Battle of," in The Oxford Encyclopedia of Medieval Warfare and Military Technology, ed. Clifford J. Rogers (New York: Oxford U.P., 2010), vol. 3, p. 34." --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:37, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

They all are used in this article. Can't read?

When you can't win with arguments, grasp at straws.

http://yalebooks.co.uk/author_display.asp?sf1=name_exact&st1=FRANKMCLYNN&DS=Frank%20McLynn

Frank McLynn is a highly regarded historian specializing in biographies and military history. He has written more than twenty books, including Richard and John: Kings at War, Napoleon, and Marcus Aurelius: A Life. Missed that part? Being a military historian does not makes him all knowing on all subjects, especially when he's specializing in early modern military history.

"Perilous Glory is a work of immense erudition that strives in 393 pages of text to be a global military history from earliest times until today." Frank McLynn the oxford professor who wrote two books on Mongols isn't a specialist but someone who's specializing on Crusaders and who has never written anything else on mongols is an expert about this specific battle. Bonus point for him painting an issue complex and controversial such as the reason for the retreat of the mongols with giant brushes. Estarena (talk) 20:13, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

If McLynn is considered a “reliable source”, I see no reason to exclude the works of Tucker, Mays or France. Repeated flimsy excuses to keep 3 academic sources that state heavy casualties, sounds like censorship. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:30, 2 January 2018 (UTC)


Frank McLynn is a reputable secondary source, he is an acclaimed military historian from one of the world's most prestigious institutions and wrote severals books specifically about the topic at hand, he's reliable even ifyoudontlikeit.

Now I think it's clear that your sources are obviously tertiary as in "include any compilation of information, without significant new analysis, commentary, or synthesis, from primary and secondary sources, especially when it does not indicate from which sources specific facts were drawn." France and Tucker obviously are not expert as their work are not centered around mongols or the battle and have limited grasp of the subject (especially France as demonstrated above) as you would expect of these types of work.

I think you can read this by yourself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Use_of_tertiary_sources

http://libguides.newhaven.edu/c.php?g=505019&p=3457534 Wikipedia requires all editing to cite the information using a verifiable secondary source Remember: Encyclopedias are an excellent place to begin your research, however, tertiary resources should NEVER be cited and/or used for academic research I think this is the end of the discussion. Estarena (talk) 23:29, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I do have a secondary source. You don't like it.
  • "France and Tucker obviously are not expert as their work are not centered around mongols or the battle and have limited grasp of the subject"
Neither is McLynn, who writes a variety of biographies over multiple time periods and individuals. He is not specialized in any field. Your own restrictions have proven McLynn is not a reliable source. Thanks.--Kansas Bear (talk) 04:52, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Oh and since you have done all this chatting, but failed to provide a quote, I would like a quote from McLynn, p. 474. Thanks so much! --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:56, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Mongols, conscious of their exiguous numbers, hated taking battle casualties, which was why they liked to line their front ranks with captives forced to fight. Two senior commanders killed in the campaigns in Poland and Hungary hardly constitutes a winnowing. It is true that Batu found a few hundred fatalities at Mohi too many, but he had only his own blundering to blame.79 The root cause of the setback at the bridge was Batu’s deep jealousy of Subedei. Whereas Subedei and Jebe had worked brilliantly together in 1221–23, the collaboration between Batu and Subedei was not a happy one.

p.473 actually.

McLynn has actually wrote books that specifically address the mongols, unlike France and Tucker.

Timothy May: https://books.google.fr/books?id=4gB9DQAAQBAJ&pg=PR13&lpg=PR13&dq=The+Mongol+Empire:+A+Historical+Encyclopedia+undergraduate&source=bl&ots=tu0eYVHIdD&sig=GCSgoXfwqJ0oi0dhGtk-5rDUIng&hl=fr&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi5lsOfr7vYAhUFyqQKHbfYAtYQ6AEIVTAF#v=onepage&q=The%20Mongol%20Empire%3A%20A%20Historical%20Encyclopedia%20undergraduate&f=false

"The encyclopedia ... puts into context the history of the mongol empire for nonspecialist readers such as highschool students, college undergrads etc.."

So no you did not provide anything close to secondary sources. I think the rules of Wikipedia and the rules of academic writing are clear (as stated above) and this issue has been addressed. Estarena (talk) 08:42, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

This page you so doggedly continue to throw around, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Use_of_tertiary_sources
  • "This page is an essay on WP:No original research, and WP:Identifying reliable sources. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not one of Wikipedia policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints."
Therefore, it is not a Wikipedia policy.
So the tertiary sources will stay. Including May's work, The Mongol Empire: A Historical Encyclopedia. Also is Asteriset your other account? --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:11, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
THE MONGOLS IN THE WEST, DENIS SINOR, Journal of Asian History, Vol. 33, No. 1 (1999), page 15;"...on April 11, Batu's forces executed a night attack on the Hungarian camp, inflicting terrible losses on its trapped defenders..[..]..While the outcome of the encounter is beyond dispute-some call it a massacre rather than a battle-historians disagree on their assessments of Bela's apparent ineptitude. Of course the Hungarians could have done better; but it is beyond doubt that no "ad hoc", feudal type force could have matched the well disiplined, highly trained, professional soldiers of the Mongol army. A seldom considered measure of the efficacy of the Hungarian resistance is the size of the losses sustained by the attackers. These were very heavy..." --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:52, 3 January 2018 (UTC)


Sorry seem you can't read: Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources, i.e., a document or recording that relates or discusses information originally presented elsewhere.

So no, you don't write using encyclopedias with other encyclopedias, if you are eager to do so you are welcomed to leave.

Age matter WP:AGE MATTERS WP:RS AGE Especially in scientific and academic fields, older sources may be inaccurate because new information has been brought to light, new theories proposed, or vocabulary changed. In areas like politics or fashion, laws or trends may make older claims incorrect. Be sure to check that older sources have not been superseded, especially if it is likely the new discoveries or developments have occurred in the last few years. In particular, newer sources are generally preferred in medicine.

When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. However, some scholarly material may be outdated, in competition with alternative theories, or controversial within the relevant field. Try to cite current scholarly consensus when available, recognizing that this is often absent. Reliable non-academic sources may also be used in articles about scholarly issues, particularly material from high-quality mainstream publications.

"The Mongol army was divided into divisions

( tümen ), ten thousand men strong, and it is hard to imagine that
each of the four army corps constituting Batu's right and left wing
respectively would have had less than one tümen. Even on the mini

mal level together they would have had 40,000 men. Béla's army is

estimated to have been 65,000 strong, and it is reasonable to reckon
that the Mongol center, opposing and defeating it, numbered at least
as many. At a very conservative estimate one can set the strength of
the Mongol invading forces between 105,000 and 150,000 men, a
figure much lower than any of those"

"Taking into consideration the

losses suffered by the Mongols we may count with, say 100,000 men
occupying Hungary who would then need, on a conservative esti

mate at least some 400,000 horses. It has been suggested that about

42,000 sq. kilometers (10,378.425 acres) can or could be used as
grazing land"

Seems pretty outdated given that modern historians give a 100,000 men for the whole Mongol army. https://books.google.fr/books?id=kMCCBAAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+Mongols+and+the+West,+1221-1410&hl=fr&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjIn8_WnrzYAhXCzqQKHcqwB6cQ6AEIKjAA#v=onepage&q=The%20Mongols%20and%20the%20West%2C%201221-1410&f=false

Sorry you don't seem to understand the policies, I would recommend you to read them over carefully. Estarena (talk) 16:52, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry you don't seem to understand the difference between an essay and a policy. And Denis Sinor is a reliable source.
  • "if you are eager to do so you are welcomed to leave"
HA! We will see who "leaves".... --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:05, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Some_types_of_sources

Age matter WP:AGE MATTERS WP:RS AGE Especially in scientific and academic fields, older sources may be inaccurate because new information has been brought to light, new theories proposed, or vocabulary changed. In areas like politics or fashion, laws or trends may make older claims incorrect. Be sure to check that older sources have not been superseded, especially if it is likely the new discoveries or developments have occurred in the last few years. In particular, newer sources are generally preferred in medicine.

When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. However, some scholarly material may be outdated, in competition with alternative theories, or controversial within the relevant field. Try to cite current scholarly consensus when available, recognizing that this is often absent. Reliable non-academic sources may also be used in articles about scholarly issues, particularly material from high-quality mainstream publications.

Outdated source, do you understand. (Guidelines)

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources, i.e., a document or recording that relates or discusses information originally presented elsewhere.

Secondary>Tertiary (Guidelines) Estarena (talk) 17:10, 3 January 2018 (UTC)


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.