Talk:First Mongol invasion of Poland

Untitled
All european armies were outnumbered. But they couldn't use their advantages. --Enerelt (talk) 03:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't a Mongol victory on the basis that they didn't actually conquer Poland. If casualties define the basis for victory then the Third Reich defeated the Soviet Union. Obviously this didn't happen. I would suggest that someone with the authority to do so, should correct this error in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.111.16 (talk) 22:16, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but the Mongols did not want to conquer Poland. If they had wanted to, they would be victorious anyways since Poland had lost a great ammount of troops already.

The mongols wanted to stop Poland and their allies from supporting Hungary. That they achieved. Thus it was a Mongol Victory.

--Arsaces (talk) 10:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

B-class review
This article is currently at start/C class, but could be improved to B-class if it had more (inline) citations. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 04:51, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It helps to specify. Looking at the article, I believe you are referring to the aftermath section.  If so, the entire article does not require a maintenance tag, only the section or passage in question. Viriditas (talk) 08:48, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Tagged unref paras. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 16:26, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Removal of "Light" and "Heavy" Casualties
The terms are subjective and ambiguous and I have not seen them appear in other war events' templates. User:Paul Christian B. Yang-ed —Preceding undated comment added 04:31, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * They still seem useful. I think they should stay. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:24, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Descendants
The Crimean Tatars are said to be the descendants of the Mongols. This is not true, as far as language is concerned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.146.175.106 (talk) 12:00, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Outcome
In the terms of victory, I think it was a Mongol one, at least in the tactical sense (on the battlefields), if not strategic (no lingering occupation due to rapid withdrawal). We could use some citations from reliable sources, though. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:29, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately we don't have reliable numbers of casualties so far as I am aware. On the Polish side, Jan Dlugosz (an extremely patriotic pro-Polish source) says that the Tartars killed enough people at Legnica to fill 9 sacks of 1 ear per person to the brim, and that "a huge slaughter ensued." The lack of Polish activity after the battle (and the preceding Mongol victories) implies that organized Polish armies had been delivered a decisive blow.

In terms of the overall campaign, Jan uses Pope Gregory IX's Papal Bull to show that there was catastrophic devastation and Eastern Europe was powerless to resist: "We remember how in Our time, because of these Tatars the name of Christianity has almost been obliterated." I do not believe the Persian sources or Secret History give any concrete details of the Polish campaign, and I don't have Yuan Shih with me to check if the Chinese sources do or not. There is no mention of Mongol casualties, but in general they took very few in battle and their casualties were only mentioned when they had been unusually high.

The Yuan Shih biography of Subedei I believe indicates that the Mongol invasion of Poland was intended not as conquest but to prevent the Polish (and Bohemians) from assisting Hungary, which was the primary target. This was the common Mongol operational plan, such as in 1218 when Jebe invaded Khara-Khitai while Subedei covered his flank and prevented the Merkit/Cuman alliance and the Khwarezm Empire from interfering. The Mongol forces appear to have wildly exceeded this goal of merely preventing interference and looting a bit when they destroyed all Polish armies and forced the Bohemian army to hide in a castle. I can't see any other explanation than a total Mongol victory in a subsidiary theater.73.247.69.66 (talk) 01:34, 12 October 2017 (UTC)Baldwin

Wahlstatt
... known to Germans as Wahlstatt ("Battlefield").
 * – Wahlstatt does not mean "battlefield" in German. The word for that is Schlachtfeld. Wahl means "choice," just as wählen means to choose, or to vote. "Battlefield" deleted. Sca (talk) 14:11, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

problem with this edit in English
" The Mongols needed to secure Poland's aid to Daniel and war booty to feed the demand of their soldiers. " - hmmm? This doesn't make sense in English and needs to be corrected - I don't have the source - can anyone adjust this? 50.111.3.17 (talk) 09:15, 18 March 2018 (UTC)