Kansas Bear (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 201: | Line 201: | ||
:::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.[[User:Asteriset|Asteriset]] ([[User talk:Asteriset|talk]]) 01:25, 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.[[User:Asteriset|Asteriset]] ([[User talk: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"! |
|||
:*[https://whatismyipaddress.com/ip/65.99.98.199 65.99.98.199] |
|||
:*Continent:North America |
|||
:*Country:United States |
|||
:*State/Region:Maryland |
|||
:*City:Leonardtown |
|||
:*[https://whatismyipaddress.com/ip/2601:151:4401:4b39:e8e3:a3a3:745a:cefa 2601:151:4401:4b39:e8e3:a3a3:745a:cefa] |
|||
:*Continent: North America |
|||
:*Country: United States |
|||
:*State/Region: Maryland |
|||
:*City: Huntingtown |
|||
::::So far neither of these IPs are in Kansas. Where is your proof? --[[User:Kansas Bear|Kansas Bear]] ([[User talk:Kansas Bear|talk]]) 01:38, 18 December 2017 (UTC) |
Revision as of 01:38, 18 December 2017
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Factual errors
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 (talk • contribs) 20:35, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Need more references
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 (talk • contribs)
This statement was not in the original version. Should we delete it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.183.150.41 (talk • contribs)
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
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 (talk • contribs)
Name spelling
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 (talk • contribs)
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
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.
- 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
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
| |
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"
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
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 (talk • contribs) 19:22, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
22:00 Mongol Standard Time?
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)
External links modified
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:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151021020850/http://www.allempires.com/article/index.php?q=invasion_mongol_europe to http://www.allempires.com/article/index.php?q=invasion_mongol_europe
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
- 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
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)
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.
Casualties
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)
- 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"!
- 65.99.98.199
- Continent:North America
- Country:United States
- State/Region:Maryland
- City:Leonardtown
- 2601:151:4401:4b39:e8e3:a3a3:745a:cefa
- Continent: North America
- Country: United States
- State/Region: Maryland
- City: Huntingtown
- So far neither of these IPs are in Kansas. Where is your proof? --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:38, 18 December 2017 (UTC)