Talk:Battle of the Kalka River

Order of events
I was under the impression that first the various Rus princes crossed the river and attacked the Mongol forces before their retreat led to the Kyivan force being attacked and surrounded by Mongols..Goliath74 16:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Numbers
''Different numbers are given in regard to the size of the Russian army. Historian Leo de Hartog gives the size of the Russian army as 30,000 while Richard Gabriel claims that the size of the Russian army was 80,000.[21] de Hartog also estimates the size of the Mongol army was 20,000 while Gabriel estimates that it was around 23,000 men.[20]''

Its nonsence! No sources give the number of men for both sides. Look into Rus or Mongol chronicles. The numbers in the article is just a fantasy of those researchers. "Academic fantasy"... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 133.41.84.146 (talk) 05:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I currently have the 'Secery History of the Mongols' which is the Mongol chronincle, so I'll see if I find anything there. Kyriakos (talk) 09:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

：：So what did you find there? The numbers in Strength in the template still look very-very fantasticly. The pripmary sources of both sides of the battle give no numbers of participants. There were no statistics at that time. I wonder how those numbers can be reliable. They turns whole article into a farce.--133.41.84.230 (talk) 09:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The numbers of both armies in the articles are drawn from several credible sources and are well sourced. Kyriakos (talk) 09:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "credible" sources? Such "credability" in case of armies' finds no support in primary sources. Its just a "credible" fabrication.--202.71.90.139 (talk) 07:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The "Secret History" says nothing about the Battle of Kalka River. I don't believe the Mongol sources have any real figures. There is no way of knowing the size of Rus or Mongol armies or specific movements. The closest source is probably "the Novgorodian First Chronicle" (translated into English as "the Chronicle of Novgorod" and online as a PDF) and it has no such numbers. It also is very vague about army movements and geography. So all the stuff about the sizes of armies and where they moved (prior to or during the battle) is complete poppycock! It's the wild ramblings and shoddy work by so-called "historians".--Mcpaul1998 (talk) 10:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I also agree that numbers in the article are somewhat dubious. russian army supposedly has 30,000-80,000 men, and loses 50,000. What if it had 30,000? How could it lose 50,000 then? Also, sources for casualties and strengths are completely different, which creates the confusion. Shouldn't we also use russian sources for russian casualties and strengths and mongol sources for mongol casualties and strengths? As of now, the article uses, as was said earlier, "credible fabrications".--99.231.48.138 (talk) 12:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)Pavel Golikov.

The mekhanism of is the following: And - there were no Kievan Rus after middle of 12 century - in 1223, in 1237, in 1240, etc. There were Russian principalities (Genrih from Latvia named their heads RUSSIAN KINGS, the titul equal to the Kievan rulers 9-12 centuries and imperors)--Maximalist (talk) 06:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * the kuman khan Kotyan went to Hungary in 1237 with 40000men, in 1222-23 two khans lost, other two khans sent forces to Kalka
 * In 1222-23 Vladimir+Novgorod forces in Livonia were 20000. Henrih from Latvia (the only primary source) wrote about 40000men with Mstislav from Kiev, about 100000 killed total, but there is a version about 10x giperbolisation
 * Russian primary sourse wrote about 90% killed (as to the Russian part of the Russian-kuman army)

Russians?
I'm wondering where all the Russians that are mentioned in the article come from? Like "A monument to Daniel of Volhynia, one of the Russian commanders". It was a battle between the Mongol Empire and Kievan Rus' so the use of Russians are probably not so good in the article. Narking (talk) 17:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Speaking of Russians, there doesn't seem to have been any Russian sources used, or Central Asian sources.


 * On a different subject, the introduction seems quite long, although I appreciate that relative to the subject is probably necessary.
 * All in all, an excellent effort. I studied the battle many years (well, decades) ago, and brings up memories.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 00:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I used the term Russians as it was used in my sources but I agree that Kievan Rus' is more historically correct. The problem with the Russian and Central Asian sources is that I don't speak Russian or Central Asian languages, but I am trying to find books by Russians in English as well as trying to get some of the Kievan Rus' chronicles. I try to keep the lead as short as possible but it is nearly impossible to shorten it further with omitting some important details. Kyriakos (talk) 00:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, the ru-Wiki article is completely unreferenced! I'll see what I can find.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 01:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Cool, I'm also going to find some sources. Kyriakos (talk) 02:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It's a great article, indeed.Faustian (talk) 02:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The Russian article has been fully rewritten (references), generally by me)--Maximalist (talk) 15:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Good Job! You may want to get a template for multiple Wikiprojects, and bring them all up to B-class. Ṝέđ ṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a line §  03:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I wonder how it can be a good article if it fails in two things. Firstly, the theme of the article is a Battle of the Kalka River, not the Campaign of Mongols to the Black sea stepps. The article, however, describe the campign rather than battle. Secondly, the numbers of participants and Mongol causelties are complete fake. No one of primary sources of Rus or Mongol side give them.--133.41.84.230 (talk) 09:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * No, theme of the article is the Battle of the Kalka River. Most GA+ class articles have a background and prelude section explaining the origins of the campaign and what took place before the battle. As for the numbers, I have replied above. Kyriakos (talk) 09:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The depicion of campaign is bigger than depiction of battle. Ussualy it should be vice versa :)--202.71.90.139 (talk) 07:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The article is woefully inaccurate and what is said to be "facts" are fanciful numbers and specifics pulled out of thin air. None of the primary sources give any such information. Furthermore, it is, as someone noted earlier, too much about the campaign overall and should focus on the battle itself. It is certainly not a B- in terms of facts. I'd give it a D or F in factual accuracy. If a student handed this in as a class paper I'd hand it back and tell them to start over with the primary sources.--Mcpaul1998 (talk) 10:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Sources need to be checked
Hector Hugh Munro, who appears to be used 3 times, is clearly not a historian and should not be used. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:04, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

The author is not Munro, but Michael Prawdin/Michael Charo. Smart Nomad (talk) 18:28, 2 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I know which author I removed. Munro is still currently used in the article and neither is a historian. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:43, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

The intervention of Brodnici
This while section is poorly written. It does not add to my understanding of the events, and is in fact quite confusing. Why is he term "Tartar" even used here? These were Mongols. The term Tartar was usually used by ignorant Europeans who didn't understand who the Mongols were. Who is this Brodnici person? If the information in this section is accurate, a better description/explanation is needed.