Talk:Battle of Legnica

Older discussion
I once read in Brittannica that the Mongols under Batu Khan stopped their advance after the Battle of Liegnitz (which is preferred to Leignitz, I believe) in part, at least, because they failed to reduce Neustadt, their next intended conquest.

Also see

http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Golden_Horde

but as I am not a competent judge of the authority of this article I enter a comment only.

pdn

All other sources, videos, world history books, and so on that I've read tell me that they retreated because the Khagan died. If Neustadt is significant, they should've at least mentioned it, but this is the first time that I've seen "Neustadt." --69.235.28.156 05:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Festival reference
I have removed the reference to the polish festival celebrating the battle as a victory for Henry II, since, after all, the author of the linked article had confused the solemmn celebration of the fall of the warsaw ghetto revolt with the battle of Legnice/Walhstad/Leignitz - which is the reason the linked article does not work anymore

Let us not speculate and then speculate on a speculation
"However, it should be noted that until now the Mongols had only faced inferior Asiatic armies not the technologically superior and advanced armies of Western Europe. Most historians believe that the Mongols would have suffered utter defeat had it in fact tried to advance to the Atlantic and had to fight the armies of Western Europe."

I find this blatently POV and offensive. And until now, I have never came across a historian that seriously believed that the Western armies were sooo superior as to defeat the armies of Khan in the European theater, which at that time were barely holding on to independance from Islamic invasion from the Eastern front. But again, this is speculation, either way, and the only purpose in posting it is to assauge the superiority complex of some of our Western European descended readers. --Zaphnathpaaneah 22:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Its well known that throughout history, the warriors of the steppes of central Asia, as well as eastern Asia were far superior in orgnanization and battle tactics than any standing European armies at that time period. And this continued all the way until the arrival of firearms. It should also be noted that towards the end of Mongol domination era, Mongols tactics and organization were being used throughout Asia and area of the Middle East (even by the Mameluks themselves).


 * clearly, Mongol army was far superior in tactics and technology than contemporary european armies. They combined chinese, islamic and steppe tactics and helped by chinese and islamic siege technology to crush any castle. The sounding defeats at Legnica and Mohi illustrates that there is no convincing reason to expect west europe will stand against mongols, except some speculation.. Ati7 07:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, the fact that they just happened not to defeat Europe when backed by insane resources might give some indication that the European armies must have put up some effect resistance. Considering how fragmented Europe was I think a unified Europe would give quite the fight to the Mongols. The proof is in the pudding, succession crisis or not. For me this is a Sunday Night Football problem, you have people rooting for their own team. Of course Asian people and European apologists are self conscious about current western superiority and want to show it was a fluke. If the Mongols crushed European armies easily then that validates their claim. The reverse is true for the other side. The real question is what are these nebulous Mongol sources that claim 20,000? I was always told that it was a raid and "no big deal" to the Mongols, I have always wondered because that seems to always be the case when a big empire gets it's butt whipped: "We didn't really want to conquer them anyway." But I wonder. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.213.87.149 (talk) 17:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Aside from the white pride, can a fragmented divided army can fight as a unified army in one day against an army that is experience to fight unified for a very long time. 01racman (talk) 12:49, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Explanation of reversion
The About.com link is not a valid source, as it is based on an outdated version of this Wikipedia article (see the bottom of the article). Baidar and Kadan were sent as a diversion to occupy the Polish forces while the main Mongol army struck Hungary; the northern Mongol force's goal was not reconaissance. The ThenAgain.com link uses exaggerated and unscholarly phrasing, has little information on the battle itself, and places a strong emphasis on the involvement of the Teutonic Knights, who quite possibly were not at the battle at all. It is also quite inaccurate by saying that "King Boleslav V" died at Krakow. Is this referring to Bolesław V the Chaste, who became the High Duke of Poland in 1243? It seems difficult for him to die in 1241 and then became the leader of Poland two years later. I also restored the 2,000-40,000 numbers, as scholars and references have been provided for those numbers. The Battle of Mohi is mentioned in the text of the article and in the "See also" section.

Regarding Kadan/Kaidu, this is an excerpt from Chambers' book The Devil's Horsemen. "Nevertheless, several serious histories of central Europe still refer to Liegnitz as a Polish victory, and the most widespread misunderstanding, caused by the use of nicknames and the awesome difficulty encountered in translating oriental characters, has managed to survive into the majority of general history books today. Kadan was mistranslated as Kaidu, and it is therefore said that Ogedei's grandson Kaidu, and not his son Kadan, who partnered Baidar in Poland in 1241. Quite apart form the obscurity of the manuscripts this is impossible since it is known that Kaidu was born in 1230 and ten-year-old boys did not command Mongol armies" (pp. 100-101). Olessi 02:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Kadan
If Kadan was one of the leaders of the first mongol raid against Poland, ho was the leader of the mongol troops ho raided Transylvania in the same year???. I read a some time ago that was Kadan the leader of the mongol raid of Transylvania.


 * In Chambers' book, he mentions Kuyuk/Guyuk/Güyük and Subutai leading forces in Transylvania. Olessi 06:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

John Man's estimates?
212.217.173.120 added that the allied forces were 100,000 according to John Man's book "Genghis Khan, a travel through the mongol empire". Man does have a book called Genghis Khan: Life, Death, and Resurrection, but I have not found a book called A Travel Through The Mongol Empire in Google searches. Is there a citation for the 100,000 figure? It seems unreasonably high for the time. Olessi 19:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * As no clarification has been provided, I have removed the 100,000 figure. Olessi 18:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Just pointing out that outside of this specific case, a number of 100,000 is actually not as unfeasible as it may sound. Considering Mongol campaigns outside of Europe, numbers of participants often ran as high as 100,000, sometimes more. The Mongols are well known for using auxiliaries, and by the mid 1200s, Mongol auxiliaries already significantly outnumbered ethnic Mongols - Tak


 * Actually, the 100,000 figure is for the army of Henry the Pious, not the Mongols. The figure has been restored using the aforementioned A Travel Through The Mongol Empire as a source; again, I am unable to find this book through Google or the Library of Congress. The 100,000 figure seems impossibly high, and mentioning 50,000 Bohemians is irrelevant since they did not participate in the battle. Olessi 15:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * As no further information (ISBN, web links, reviews) has been provided, I am removing the information again. Olessi 00:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I was able to find an ISBN for Genghis Khan : life, death, and resurrection by John Man (0593050444). However, my concerns about the numbers remain, and including the Bohemians in the infobox is irrelevant as they did not participate in the battle. Olessi 18:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Higher than usual Mongol casualties?
While reading this paragraph, I have noticed several references stating that the Mongols 'suffered higher casualties than usual'. Except, of course, what defines a 'higher casulaties than usual' for the Mongols?

The battle of Liegnitz/Leignitz, if anything, should be considered as nothing more than a 'side-affair', and played only an insignificant part of the greater Mongol objective of world conquest. In fact, as soon as Ogedai died in 1241, Subotai was recalled and Mongol support for the European theater declined sharply. This occured due to no small part of Batu Khan's parentage, whose father, Jochi, led a questionable lineage. Some considered Jochi to be a bastard, and not Genghis Khan's real son. Although Ogedai exercised general goodwill towards his 'cousin', his other family members, who looked down upon Jochi's descendats, simply could not stand the possibilities of empowering an 'illegitimate' lineage.

The battles where Mongols suffered enormous casulaties occured not in Europe, but elsewhere. Fact is, the swiftness of which Mongol armies conquered Eastern Europe was never emulated elsewhere. In theaters such as China, battles were both lenghty and portracted, where annihilation of entire Mongol armies was not uncommon.

- Tak


 * It definitely should be referenced. Chambers' book The Devil's Horsemen does not give any figures on Mongol casualties, stating merely, "When the news of the defeat reached him, Wenceslas fell back to collect reinforcements from Thuringia and Saxony. At Klozko the Mongol vanguard found him, but his army was far too powerful for it and it was driven off by his cavalry. The vanguard returned and reported the engagement, and Baidar and Kadan, whose casualties at Liegnitz had been heavy, realized that they did not have the strength to face him" (p. 99). Later he writes, "As always, the incredible mobility of the Mongol army had made the Poles assess its strength at five times greater than it was, and its sudden withdrawal allowed them to believe that their dauntless resistance had inflicted so many casualties that the Mongols had been forced to abandon an invasion" (p. 100).


 * With that in mind, it seems the Mongols suffered sufficient casualties to be dissuaded from going after the Bohemians, but Bohemia was never a goal of the campaign and would only have been a target of opportunity. The real goal of the entire campaign was Hungary, which was where the Mongol vanguard went after Liegnitz. It is possible the Mongols' casualties have been inflated by the confusion regarding the numbers in their army, or results from the older view that Liegnitz was a Christian victory. I will add a citation needed template for the statement. Olessi 16:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Olessi, thanks for the reply. I have confidence in your ability to monitor subject matters such as this one.


 * For this article, perhaps it'd be best if the phrase "higher than usual" can be replaced by "higher than expected". "Higher than expected" casualties can be assessed, thus leading to what you mentioned earlier that the Mongol vanguard chose not to engage in a numerically superior enemy . However, "Higher than expected" is very different from "higher than usual". The latter would imply the Mongols suffered far more casualties in this battle than elsewhere, which of course, is untrue, as the Mongols had participated and suffered more casualties in other battlezones prior and after Liegnitz.


 * - Tak


 * Thanks for your compliment; I do try to keep things neutral and sourced. I have incorporated your suggestion into the text. Olessi 19:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

"Decimated"?
Decimated means 1/10 were killed. At the same time, the article says the allied army was "almost destroyed" and "essentially the entire army". What, everyone else was wounded? Survivalibity of a battle wounds was rather low in the Dark Ages, especially if they lost the field with the wounded to the Mongols (what I guess happened?). --HanzoHattori 21:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The original meaning of "decimate" indeed was to kill 1/10 of the lot. However, that is an archaic meaning; the primary meaning of the term today is "to destroy a great number or proportion of" (see catachresis). Would you prefer "Casualties: Unknown, but most of the army" or variations thereof? Olessi 21:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * In a similar discussion, somebody proposed obliterated instead of decimated -- Zz 15:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

About the controversy
I found this site:  About the invasion of Poland, this site talks that alongside with Orda and Baidar in the leardship of the invasion there was a son of Chagatai named Qaidan. Also cites that the commander of the mongol forces in Transylvania was Kadan, son of Ogodei, and Buri, grandson of Chagatai. What do they talk about this?? --Nogai Khan 14:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

HOW COULD THE ALLIED TROOPS BE 2,000-40,000 STRONG? That's a really bad estimate... That's like saying the casulaties in the Battle of Stalingrad(for the Russians) range from 50,000 to 1,000,000. 1 - 20 ratio? Why don't you guys just say around 21,000????????....................................................... And then there's the casualties... 2,000-10,000????? 1 - 5 ratio? Better I guess................................................. -MORE INQUIRIES What happened to the descriptions????? When I read these Mongol conquests months back, they detailly explained how the Mongols defeated their enemies. Like when they fought the heavily armored knights, the arrows hardly pierced their armors, so the Mongols aimed for their horses, and picked off the foot soldiers with their heavy calvaries..... What happened to the silk that the Mongol warriors wored that helped them against arrows??? Where are the descriptions of the battle? how did these articles turned so vague and inconclusive?( 2,000-40,000!).......................................................... .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Does the 2,000 mean 20,000?

(OPINION) The casualties for the tartars shouldn't be too high, since no other articles mentioned that they were planning to retreat; nor anything about reinforcements (after the battle or before), and previous battles have shown that they were known to beat numerical superior forces( except against the Mamluks of Egypt, and Vietnam, (and maybe Korea)as far as I've read)...................................................................

MrZhuKeeper 09:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for posting up the information..... But logically speaking, from what I've read about the knights of the medieval age, their battlefield tatics, and the armour that they wore. Everything sounds correct, about how they lost. -

Teutonic Knights
While the Teutonic Knights have traditionally been placed at the battle, this viewpoint has been doubted by more recent scholars. Gerard Labuda has written that the Knights were added to Jan Długosz's writings after the chronicler died. Some texts have said that Grand Master Poppo von Osterna died leading the Teutonic Knights in the 1241 battle, which is false. Osterna served as Grand Master during the 1250s (and was buried near/at Liegnitz). This is specifically mentioned in William Urban's The Teutonic Knights (2003) and already sourced in the article.

The chivalricorders.org link is not reliable about the battle, either. It states that Conrad of Thuringia eventually died from wounds sustained during the battle. However, the landgrave actually died from sickness in 1240. The grand master during the time of the battle was Gerhard von Malberg.

The article already describes the overwhelming victory achieved by the Mongols in the battle. The "Junior General" wargaming link does not meet the credentials for a reliable source. Olessi 15:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The structure and style
Am I the only one, who thinks that this article is somewhat ponderously written and uses strange vocabulary, which makes understanding for non-English readers unnecessarily difficult? Today I have already read several other articles about Mongol invasions to Europe, and all suffer from the same faults. It is an ordeal to read it. Centrum99 (talk) 17:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Naming of the article
I came across the article and was suprised to see it called Legnica and not Liegnitz. I've never in my life heard it called by the polish name, in my experience, this battle (and the one of the same name from the 18th century) is always referred to as liegnitz. (or leignitz) Just thought it was rather odd considering this is an english site.Fritigern (talk) 22:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's a cursory glance through Google Books with some texts published since 1950: Battle of Liegnitz, Battle of Wahlstatt, Battle of Legnica. Liegnitz seems more commonly used than Legnica, which is more commonly used than Wahlstatt. Olessi (talk) 23:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

"wahlstatt" is a german word for battlefield. wahlstatt was the name of the village, that grew around the chapel which was built after the battle (since 1948 "legnica pole" in polish). the term "battle of wahlstatt" is used to specify the 13th century one and not the one at the 7 year war in the 18th century. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.50.49.215 (talk) 08:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Wahlstatt in medieval times, durign the reign of Henry the bearded (who was the gratest unifier of Poland) has polish name Dobre Pole (what means in english good field) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.8.183.181 (talk) 15:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Bohemians
has repeatedly added 50,000 Bohemians as part of the Christian army in the infobox. I object to this inclusion, as the Bohemians were at least a day's ride away and did not participate in the battle. This information is already mentioned in the text of the article; since the Bohemians were not involved in the actual battle, they should not be mentioned in the infobox. 80.244.92.183 has stated that 'John Man "Genghis khan", chapter 14, page 207' has relevant information; would (s)he mind posting this information? Olessi (talk) 23:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Since the rationale has not been provided as to why we should include the Bohemians who did not fight, I will remove them from the infobox again. Olessi (talk) 17:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Edits by 203.91.114.3
Copied from User talk:203.91.114.3

Battle of Legnica‎

I have reverted your unhelpful edits on Battle of Legnica. The data you changed had inline citations saying where it came from. It is very important that to have data that can be verified from sources - and that the sources are referenced in inline citations (footnotes). Changing the data without updating the citations is extremely unhelpful.

I have noted that you seem to be in the habit of making unexplained changes to numerical data in articles. If you want to improve articles please provide inline citations for your data; otherwise people are likely to revert them.--Toddy1 (talk) 05:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Today you have added some new information to the info-box. But you did not add any citations. I have added tags to this. If no citations are provided by the end of the week, I will delete the new additions.

You also altered the URL for a source so that it did not link to the article. I have reverted this unhelpful addition.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The mongols advanced into vienna austria so poland is not the farthest west ...
... they arrived at the suburbs of vienna austria raping and pillaging ... so it's pretty obvious to me that they had full intentions to continue on west. Wernerger7 (talk) 17:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

--> well, Vienna is south of Legnica in an almost straight line - and a little bit to the east, to be precise. So Legnica was the furthest west the Mongols advanced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.72.122.166 (talk) 20:37, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Vettern von Wahlstatt
" Vettern von Wahlstatt [Bearbeiten]

Vettern von Wahlstatt nannten sich später sechs schlesische Adelsfamilien, von denen jeweils nur ein männliches Familienmitglied die Schlacht überlebt haben soll – die Familien Rothkirch, Strachwitz, Nostitz, Seydlitz, Prittwitz und Zedlitz. Einem Mythos zufolge verlor die Familie Rothkirch alle männlichen Familienangehörigen in der Schlacht. Einzig ein erst nach der Schlacht geborener männlicher Nachkomme existierte. Für diesen übernahm der Bund der überlebenden Kämpfer die Vormundschaft. Die heute lebenden Mitglieder dieser sechs Familien veranstalten regelmäßig Treffen im Gedenken an den Tag der Schlacht." German article

someone able to translate that plx? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.50.49.215 (talk) 07:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Here's the translation: Vettern von Wahlstatt (Cousins of Wahlstatt) was the name that six silesian noble families, of which is said that only a single male member of each family has survived the battle, gave to themselves later - these are the families of Rothenkirch, Strachwitz, Nostitz, Seydlitz, Prittwitz and Zedlitz. According to a myth the family of Rothenkirch lost all its male members in the battle. Only a boy that has been born after the battle kept the family in existence. The band of the survivors took the wardship of that boy. Until today the members of this six families meet to commemorate the day of the battle. --87.178.43.251 (talk) 16:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC) ---

Orda's forces devastated northern Poland and the southwestern border of Lithuania.[citation needed] Baidar and Kadan ravaged the southern part of Poland: first they sacked Sandomierz; then on 3 March they defeated Polish army near Tursk on 13 February; then on 18 March they defeated another Polish army at Chmielnik; on 24 March they seized and burned Kraków, and a few days later they tried unsuccessfully to capture the Silesian capital of Wrocław (Breslau)

This cronology does not make sense. Did the Monguls sack Sandomierz on February 13?? OvidPete (talk) 03:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Mongol losses - "believed to be minimal"?
Who exactly believed that Mongol losses were minimal? Considering that the Mongol vanguard was forced to retreat in heavy face-to-face combat against heavily armoured knights in the first phase of the battle, it seems it must have suffered serious losses.

The information on Mongol losses is unsourced. And I'm not saying that overall Mongol losses were substantial, but considering the vanguard must have suffered at least considerable losses in the first phase of the battle, overall Mongol losses couldn't be minimal.

Peter558 (talk) 09:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

B-class review: failed
Agree with milhist, the citations are deeply insufficient. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 19:39, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Better source
Could we find a better source than the article by Erik Hildinger from the Military History Magazine? It repeats some disproved myths (for example with regard to the numbers involved, presence of Poppo etc.) and adds a few of its own ("Piastow" vs. Piast, or the idea that this the day is celebrated in Poland - that one is pure, and particularly silly, invention). The Hildinger article is a lot like History Channel programs - pop-history with a bunch of non-serious sensationalism mixed in. Need something better. Volunteer Marek 20:12, 27 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The text by Kohn looks also quite suspicious. In the cited passage the author claims the presence of about 30.000 Teutonic Knights at Legnica. Even if this was the total size of the European army, it would still look largely exaggerated. I would also like to know the names of some of the German cities that fell like dominoes into the Mongols' hands. A quick google search didn't give me much information in this respect (even if the Mongols may have reached Austria). In any case, the language of the book indicates that this is a popular or even sensationalist text that is not overly concerned with historical accuracy. 92.230.56.119 (talk) 21:55, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Seconded. The reference, and statements in support of which it is cited, should be removed. --95.89.50.102 (talk) 14:46, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Easily captured German and Polish Cities?
Actually this did not appear to be the case, the Mongols were repelled by the city of Wroclaw / Breslau and were also defeated by the Bohemians shortly after the battle of Liegnicz. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.1.191.34 (talk) 14:38, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Conclusion section
The conclusion section of the article is weired, as it sounds like the "Battle of Wahlstatt" happened after Mohi and is a different event from Liegnitz - practically it actually repeats the core events as if they happened again. I think it needs a major overhaul. ASchudak (talk) 10:37, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Mongols is outnumbered in the battle of legnica
http://www.arsbellica.it/pagine/medievale/Liegnitz/liegnitz_eng.html

all of the sources indicates mongol is slightly outnumbered in the battle of legnica. PLease change it, i dont feel comfortable downplaying a battle that is very significant in history — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.85.230.82 (talk) 17:25, 27 December 2015 (UTC) Why will Wikipedia erase all of my sources and delete what should have been a very solid historical reference. I'm starting to think this article only favors European pride that downplays a huge Mongol victory in European soil. I'm feeling the butt hurt Europeans freaking downplaying a Asian victory — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:141:301:E3A0:194:77F6:CD71:5F5B (talk) 23:32, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The only one "butthurt" here is you, nutjob. Relax.HernánCortés1518 (talk) 20:22, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Battle of Legnica. 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/20070207082630/http://www.allempires.com:80/article/index.php?q=battle_liegnitz to http://www.allempires.com/article/index.php?q=battle_liegnitz

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:18, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Be Careful of Using Biased European sources
There is a long line of blatantly incorrect European historiography with the mongol conquests that we need to be vigilant against (i,e Frank McLynn, Genghis Khan (2015). Many European chroniclers tried to downplay defeats to the Mongols, and it is all too easy for us westerners to take their accounts at face value and lessen the impact of the Mongolian defeats. For example Polish chronicler Jan Dluoscz estimated the Mongolian army, after it had mysteriously taken such horrible losses in earlier victories that it had to retreat for reinforcements, was many times the size of the Polish army at Liegnitz. He describes Liegnitz as a nearly won battle for the Poles (that somehow turned into a massacre) where the Mongols effectively got lucky in by yelling out 'Run, Run' in Polish. These accounts are, while valuable, inherently untrustworthy without critical appraisal.

The European rulers themselves also issued propaganda of nonexistent victories, such as the supposed Bohemian victory over what could have been no more than a small scouting force shortly after Liegnitz. This of course is not unusual for the time period and for armies facing the Mongols: the Jin generals also lied about victories over the Mongols to Emperor Aizong in the 1230s, right before their Empire was destroyed.

None of the Sino/Persian sources on the Mongols give any indication that Mongol losses at Legnica (in contrast to Mohi, where they were higher than normal) were any different than the normal very small losses Mongols suffered in victories. In aggregate across their campaigns, the Mongols must have taken extremely few losses in battle because otherwise they could have never completed their conquests given their tiny starting numbers. At Mohi there was a reason for the extra losses (Batu aggressively trying to force the bridge in the face of crossbowmen). At Liegnitz, the Mongols created a gap between the knights and the infantry by use of a partial feigned retreat, and separated them with smoke bombs. The isolated knights were then surrounded and killed. Where could these supposed heavy casualties have come from then? Crossbowmen aren't going to do well against horse-archers in the open, and even if the initial knight charge may have connected into a Mongol unit, we must keep in mind Philip Sabin's research that the vast majority of casualties in pre-modern combat came from the rout, not the melee.

73.247.69.66 (talk) 18:55, 1 September 2017 (UTC)Baldwin

Chambers
For all the complaints about non-English sources, could we get the actual quote from Chambers? Also, some info on the book. It appears to be pretty old and the info may well be outdated.  Volunteer Marek  19:47, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

And the number of 25000 for the "European" side seems a bit dubious. Medieval battles just were not that large. This is within the realm of "possible" but also "unlikely". And of course there was a tendency for chroniclers of the time to exaggerate the size of forces to make it more dramatic, and historiography well into 20th century had a tendency to take these exaggerations at face value uncritically.  Volunteer Marek  19:50, 12 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Chambers, J. (1979). The Devil's Horsemen: The Mongol Invasion of Europe. Atheneum. I'm not the one who quoted his work but the page is given so you can look it up if you need a quote. Furthermore, no significant new info or work on the subject as far as I know in the last few years so there's no reason for the book to be obsolete.


 * Given the wikipedia guidelines:
 * "Citations to non-English reliable sources are allowed on the English Wikipedia. However, because this project is in English, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when available and of equal quality and relevance."
 * "If you quote a non-English reliable source (whether in the main text or in a footnote), a translation into English should always accompany the quote. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations by Wikipedians, but translations by Wikipedians are preferred over machine translations."
 * Unless you can provide a reliable translation of Maron's work or prove that Chambers work is obsolete, the current numbers will stay.
 * "And the number of 25000 for the "European" side seems a bit dubious. Medieval battles just were not that large. This is within the realm of "possible" but also "unlikely"." First, this isn't a discussion forum, second you would need serious academic to support that claim and not just what you think is dubious or unlikely.
 * "And of course there was a tendency for chroniclers of the time to exaggerate the size of forces to make it more dramatic, and historiography well into 20th century had a tendency to take these exaggerations at face value uncritically." Again, this is not the place to write what you think or believe.Asteriset (talk) 14:33, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Citations to non-English reliable sources are allowed  - exactly.
 * If you quote a non-English reliable source - we're not including quotes. Just using it as source. And the note is already provided.
 * And there's no provision about "a reliable translation", whatever that is suppose to be. You just invented that part of the guideline yourself.
 * Chambers' work is from 1979 (almost thirty years old). And Chambers is an "amateur" historian . The book is also a work written for popular consumption. These types of works often sensationalize and exaggerate historical facts. Hence, dubious.
 * On the other hand Jerzy Maroń is a professional historian who's a professor at a top ranked university. He, unlike Chambers, is actually a specialist in this area. His work is from 2001.
 * This is no contest. We go with the high quality scholarly source, whatever language it is in.  Volunteer Marek   15:33, 13 November 2017 (UTC)


 * "Citing non-English sources: Citations to non-English reliable sources are allowed on the English Wikipedia. However, because this project is in English, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when available and of equal quality and relevance. As with sources in English, if a dispute arises involving a citation to a non-English source, editors may request that a quotation of relevant portions of the original source be provided, either in text, in a footnote, or on the article talk page."
 * "Quoting non-English sources: If you quote a non-English reliable source (whether in the main text or in a footnote), a translation into English should always accompany the quote. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations by Wikipedians, but translations by Wikipedians are preferred over machine translations." I didn't invent any guideline, learn to read. Asteriset (talk) 15:59, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes and there already is a note for Maron. You also need to remember WP:AGF.
 * And before telling me to "learn to read" you might want to parse that sentence you wrote and pay special attention to the word "quote".  Volunteer Marek   16:14, 13 November 2017 (UTC)


 * "if a dispute arises involving a citation to a non-English source, editors may request that a quotation of relevant portions of the original source" "If you quote a non-English reliable source (whether in the main text or in a footnote), a translation into English should always accompany the quote. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations by Wikipedians" I don't see a translation from a reliable source, again learn to read.Asteriset (talk) 16:30, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * There's already a note with the source. You're being obstinate. And: "If you  QUOTE ...". We. Are. Not. Quoting.  Volunteer Marek   16:37, 13 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Can you seriously not read more than two sentences? "editors may request that a quotation of relevant portions of the original source" > PROVIDE A TRANSLATED QUOTE OF THE ORIGINAL TEXT FROM A RELIABLE SOURCE. Again, learn to read.Asteriset (talk) 16:46, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You really need to stop it with the "learn to read" stuff. It's becoming tiresome and doesn't exactly encourage cooperation.  Volunteer Marek   16:48, 13 November 2017 (UTC)


 * This is tiresome because of your inability to read two sentences together, again the guidelines are clear: in case of dispute provide a translated QUOTE from a reliable source. End of story.Asteriset (talk) 16:55, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Here is your translation of "3800": "3800".  Volunteer Marek   17:18, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

From what I could find concerning Chambers, he is just a writer and can not be considered a reliable source. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:35, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

The article is completely rubbish and not historically accurate?
Clearly the Europeans have downplay a very significant battle. The facts doesn’t show the Mongols are in a numerical disadvantage, a very misleading article that is biased to make the Templars and European medieval army look good 01racman (talk) 22:13, 4 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, I fully agree. It is part and parcel of the Polish fanatics re-writing history as they would wish it to be seen on the English-language Wikipedia and no-one at all polices them. All over Wikipedia their hilarious pages are. Find a non-Polish history book and read it. You will hardly recognise this trash.2A00:23C4:B63A:1800:9D76:2A74:EFB2:39D (talk) 20:00, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Tartar Relation, Giovanni da Pian del Carpine, ~1248. Page 80.
The Tartar Relation is not by Giovanni da Pian del Carpine. It is by C. de Bridia. Giovanni wrote the Ystoria Mongalorum. I'm not sure what this citation is citing. Srnec (talk) 01:14, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Participation of the Knights Templar
It is worth clarifying how many Templars took part in the battle, how many ordinary Templar soldiers also fought. If we could add to the article about the territories of origin of these Templar knights, from which commanderies they came, considering that they mostly were from England, Aragon, Burgundy and France. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:5991:2D00:7C24:9C2C:3A0F:B27C (talk) 16:55, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Is there accurate information about Teutonic Order?
Why are battle of Legnica is also know as battle of Liegnitz? Is there no doubts that neither Teutonic Order nor some German military participated in battle? Bekbakbek (talk) 00:30, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Terminology: Silesian and Polish
The article is using a confusing opposition of terms 'Polish' and 'Silesian', as if Silesia were not Polish at the time of the battle. Silesia was a part of the core Polish territories, and after the disruption of the Kingdom of Poland into semi-independent duchies remained the key actor among the Polish duchies. Duke Henry the Pious was a potential candidate for becoming the king of unified Poland. The process of increased colonization of Silesia by German settlers began only after the ravaging of the Duchy by Mongols.The colonization and later political actions by neighbouring powers led to breaking the bonds with Poland and the gradual germanization of the region, fullfilled only in the XVIII century by Prussia. 77.16.217.40 (talk) 11:55, 19 March 2023 (UTC)