Talk:Mongol invasion of Europe

No historical fact will support Mongols failed to occupy Esztergom
"the Mongols claimed control of Hungary, they could not occupy fortified cities such as Fehérvár, Esztergom, Veszprém, Tihany, Győr, Pannonhalma, Moson, Sopron, Vasvár, Újhely, Zala, Léka, Pozsony, Nyitra, Komárom, Fülek and Abaújvár" All Historical authors and expert will agree that Esztergom was destroyed by the Mongols, in fact that is the main reason why King Bela IV has to move its Capital to Buda because the city cannot be defended. please change it, it is not historically accurate.


 * I live in Esztergom. I know for sure, that the town and the castle (citadel) were two separate places. The latter was built on a hill outside of the town. The royal palace and the archbishop's residence were located inside the citadel, with most of the treasure, that the mongols wanted. The poorly fortified town was completely destroyed by the mongols, it's documented. The citadel was besieged and charged repeatedly, but the mongols failed to take it. It's also documented in the sources. This again underlines, that the mongols could sack anything they wanted, but not the heavily fortified places. The town of Esztergom was quickly rebuilt, and it belonged to the archbishop from then on. As for the new capital, Buda, the town itself was built on a well defendable place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.66.232.152 (talk) 19:18, 25 April 2019 (UTC)  152.66.232.152 (talk) 19:21, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Too much use of heavily biased European primary sources
This article needs to incorporate a wider array of sources, since some of the modern sources referenced heavily rely on uncritical appraisals of the biased European primaries, while placing much less emphasis on the Persian chroniclers and the Yuan Shi and Chinese biographies, such as the biography of Subedei. This type of provincial examination of individual Mongol campaigns in isolation has fallen out of favor in recent decades, and many secondary sources are thus out of date, since understandably, there are too many sources in too many languages for one person to use them all. Other wiki Mongol articles have become more accurate over time, but this one is still lacking.

For fuller explanation, if you actually read the European primary sources, you notice almost all of them exhibit the same characteristics of exaggerating Mongol numbers (if mentioned of course) - for example, Jan Dlugosz claims that the diversionary Mongol force at Legnica was several times the size of Duke Henry II, which is logically impossible given its secondary role. Accounts of both Legnica and Mohi claim that the Mongols were actually losing for most of the fight, but then got lucky by yelling in Polish or used foreign smoke which turned the tide, and that the Mongol forces took grievous casualties and almost lost. Then you have all the nearby European rulers claiming that of course they drove the Mongols out of their lands. But Wenceslas could not have won any kind of real victory, since such a needless battle was against Subedei's orders from the Chinese sources. This version of events is often taken with only minor critical analysis, and often the more grounded European accounts such as Matthew Paris are omitted, like this page.

On the other hand the Yuan Shi indicates that at Mohi, Batu lost 30 of his 4,000 personal troops during the bloody bridge fighting. While he undoubtedly lost more of his auxiliary troops than his elites, this is a less than 1% casualty rate for the only part of the battle where the Mongols lost notable amounts of men. The Mongols recorded that this was a bloody battle because they were used to taking extremely minimal casualties. Given after the battle the Mongols ravaged huge swathes of the countryside simultaneously, it seems highly unlikely that their casualties at Mohi were anything near what was implied by the European sources.


 * The fact, that the mongols ravaged the countryside proves only, that king Béla has lost most of his army, and tells us nothing about the mongol losses. Batu lost 30 of his personal bodyguards is irrelevant for the grand picture. Noone knows what were the losses (not even for the hungarians, since their army size is also unknown). But directly after the campaign, travellers report from the mongol owned lands, that the mongol losses were large. It does not necessarily mean battle casualities, as there were severe epidemics and famine too. 152.66.232.152 (talk) 19:48, 25 April 2019 (UTC)


 * well I don't agree with you with a bit of that there's a bit of European bias if you want to take a more neutral view the the Mongols I can tell you a few things I know that I don't see in this article one the Mongols often did not fight in a straightforward manner they would not engage they would use light infantry and archery and also often would use their auxiliaries and allies and wouldn't even join the battle until they seen how their allies were doing I know of examples where they would simply walk away and run off the battlefield and leave their allies there to be slaughtered secondly I don't see anything in this article that speaks of the Scandinavian armies or Viking armies it's all somatics you can call it whatever you want but really where that's where they came from who came and rejected or put the Huns the Mongols in the full retreat from Europe so if you want to take a more neutral view I think you should definitely add these in in some sort of context because anyone who studies Any history at all and this is just the basics we know this so if you want to offer more neutral view you could say that and I understand what you're saying but in this article I see a lot of stuff about southern Europe and I know what I know about them and I know that if the northern European tribes had such trouble with them that the ones you speak of definitely wouldn't wouldn't be so glorious I do so well but another thing they commonly did was grabbed up Europeans or subjugated people's and they use them as their as the base of their army and if they weren't doing good they just simply walked off the battlefield so I think you should have that in some sort of context if you want to be more neutral I can't stand I have a very good view anything positive to say but I know that is the truth and I don't see it anywhere in this article all these other Southern Europeans I don't know much about him but I only definitely if the Germans and the French and people had such a problem fighting these people that the ones you speak of from Italy and and Georgia and and all these Southern European countries definitely wasn't hungry definitely won a fair very well in fact knowing my history they did very poorly unless you want to talk about Vlad who also did very poorly but he was one of these people I speak of that had a very tough role but very essential like William Wallace or Judas and they they paved the way for victory doing very bad essential things but basically losing in the end and we're often much hated although Wallace is loved in Scotland and I'm sure glad has loved and hungry and well I don't know where poor Judas is loved 209.171.85.223 (talk) 08:29, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * obviously I meant like cavalry sorry for the spelling mistakes if you need any clarification let me know but just the two main things that I know I don't care what you want to call I'm Scandinavians Vikings are the ones who defeated the the Mongol armies and evicted them from Europe for good and that the Mongol armies often would use subjugated people's as the base of their armies and put them out to fight and if they didn't do well they would simply walk off the battlefield and and yes I definitely agree with you that the southern Europeans might be glorifying their actions a little bit if the Germans and such had such a hard time with them but I think the light infantry of the Scandinavians was just too much for those little baby Mongo they had a better technique the light cavalry sure it works but how do you engage a very thinly put forward line of light infantry the line was so long the Huns wouldn't even know where to engage and they would just simply be engolfed and destroyed like like anyone that came before them my opinion and also mongol tactics simply wouldn't work in that sort of environment
 * and I don't think the Mongols would even be able to access Scandinavia so they became the hunters became The hunted there's nobody you can send against to the Scandinavians at the time you can't go there I don't think they would even survive you know what I mean there's no there's no one to divide and conquer there's so I think they finally met their match when they got evicted by the Vikings I don't see anything about that in this article and I know that's true 100% and also I think they're they're horses will probably finally met their match too their little ponies probably couldn't even run half as fast but that's just an opinion all I know for fact is that the Vikings are Scandinavians evicted them from Europe and that often they would use their subjugated people's armies and simply walk off the battlefield if it wasn't going their way they wouldn't even engage so if you want out of more neutral view go ahead I guess you can compare Hungarian troops to they're Northern European counterparts as troops troops and just say how is this even possible they're obviously glorifying (the only reason I guess it's been off topic only but the only reason any of these like the Italians any of these Southern European armies ever did so good was because these Northern places they didn't live in cities there was no cities when they came to Germany or are these other places we lived in small tribes they were counting small families who are simply coming together to fight against them and when they finally forced us into bulldating our power which was very unfortunate for the whole world as far as as far as the science and the in the such but once we consolidated our power and united into cities and Nations they got evicted quite quickly.)
 * Yes you can do that research that yourself most of the northern European places when the Romans came Southern armies there wasn't even towns or cities they were simply families living together coming together to defend themselves and the consolidation of power was a horrible thing for the whole world. One only has to look at Germany what happened in world war II to the only successful State Nation the only other one I can even compare is the early Greek city-states which is unsuccessful but this is something similar to what happened yeah in Germany and world war II you know destroyed a beautiful culture one of the best most amazing in the world and science philosophy nature all these things and it was gone simply because we had to consolidate power to fight these bastards off so I think that's also worth mention if you wanted more neutral view. 209.171.85.223 (talk) 08:42, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * but yes I don't think many people know are understand that when they seem to think we are glorifying our history or or it's simply European point of view is that what people fail to mention about Europeans is that we simply lived in families we didn't have any cities or towns and that's a fact we are simply a bunch of families in that you people that brought the violence to us forced us into these cities and towns and all these things that you blame us for that you that come from you yourself even the native Americans had towns when we found them we never had these things I promise you you can go and do your research and then come back to me we'll talk about it 209.171.85.223 (talk) 08:46, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Second, after the victory at Mohi, it needs to be clarified that the Mongols split their army into two distinct missions: Kadan would pursue King Bela along the Adriatic coast with a mobile force, while Batu and Subedei would subdue central and eastern Hungary and exploit their gains. It's definitely false to say that the Mongols struggled against the Hungarian castles and fortresses. The Mongols destroyed the citadel and garrison at Oradea, sacked almost all of Esztergom, More accurate would be to say that Kadan had no answer to them, since he was not equipped to take them by anything but guile, which failed. We have no record of Subedei's army being deterred at any point — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.247.69.66 (talk) 08:52, 7 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Oradea was basically the only (out of the dozens of) well fortified place to fall. Every other was defended, although the mongols have used siege equipment reportedly. As for Esztergom, the town, and the royal citadel were two separate locations. The town was poorly fortified, and was situated on a lowland, so it was easily destroyed. The citadel (with all the treasure of the royal palace) was built next to it on a hill, and it had (and has) stone walls. The mongols failed to take it, despite mounting multiple charges, and having many pieces of siege equipment. Instead of jerking off to the casuality numbers, you should sometimes actually read the sources. 152.66.232.152 (talk) 19:48, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, they DIDN'T have the heavy siege equipment that they used to take down castles/fortifications in China. The effort of moving such war material clear across central Asia and a huge chunk of Europe was too involved. The Mongol force was heavier armed than the 'recon in force' of Subotai and Jebe in the 1220's, but it wasn't the same make-up as was used against the Chinese. 50.111.45.222 (talk) 00:23, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Ridiculous Eurocentric Bias - Needs serious overhaul
A number of the statements in the article are so far divorced from the actual primary sources that they are essentially fiction. For example, the article currently has:

''"The Mongols' pursuit of Béla IV continued from Zagreb through Pannonia to Dalmatia. While in pursuit, the Mongols under the leadership of Kadan (Qadan) suffered a major defeat at Klis Fortress in Croatia in March 1242." '' Thomas of Spalato, our best source on these events, actually says the following.

"However, the Tatars believed that the king [Bela IV of Hungary] was in the fortress of Klis, and so they began to attack the fort from all sides, launching arrows and hurling spears. However, the place was naturally well fortified, and they could cause only limited harm. So then they dismounted from their horses and began to creep up hand over hand to higher ground. But the defenders of the fort hurled huge stones at them and managed to kill a number of them. This setback, however, only made them more ferocious, and they came right up to the great walls and fought hand to hand. They looted the houses and took away no little plunder. But when they learnt that the king was not there, they abandoned their attack on the fortress, and ascending their mounts rode off in the direction of Trogir. All the same, no small number of them turned towards Split."

There is no possible way to derive the former statement from the actual source. This entire article is filled with distortions of this kind in some bizarre attempt to prove that the Europeans performed well in the invasions. I don't have the time to make a cleanup, but I did delete the offending passage at the very least. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baldwinthebold (talk • contribs) 09:52, 26 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I just want to repeat the last thing I said to the other guy since you want to bring up eurocentric bias I'll ask you to do your research into Germanic and Scottish people when when they came and found us with their armies that we didn't have any towns or cities none existed at all and we simply lived in families in peace and that you forced us to do these things you other people you forced us to consolidate our power into towns and cities and Nations so before you accuse us of a eurocentric bias please do your research even the native Americans they seem to have a lot of say but we found them they were living in towns and cities all everybody except that I know of okay so please don't accuse people of eurocentric bias until you know a little something about us 209.171.85.223 (talk) 08:51, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * 0 primitive cuz that's not the case at all the salts have always been current in metalworking when Iron age started we had iron when the bronze age started we had bronze and so on and so on we chose to live in families we didn't have cities or towns I was our way of life okay the natives all the white man in the white man ruins nature blah blah blah no no it's not how it happened at all we found you living in season we found you when they found us we just lived in families we were primitives we weren't nothing we were farmers we had the same technologies everyone we were ready to give them their fair fight but they forced us to consolidate into towns and cities and Nations and countries and it wasn't good for us it was horrible so before you open your mouth please go do your research and don't accuse us of something that you did yourself you know and all this stuff that you basically forced us to do or that little ass basically you I don't know who you is where it comes from I suppose it comes from Iran or Iraq area that was called something different at the time and made its way to grease and then into Rome and just spread from there but we we were actually Superior in in certain ways in the study of nature astrology science but no in Scotland and Germany not a single town or city existed when you came with your armies and found us 209.171.85.223 (talk) 08:55, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:23, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Bitva na sinix vodax.jpg

Town names.
I can see German names like Legnitz or Breslau on the map, but in XIII century those places were Polish and it was Legnica and Wratislavia (now Wroclaw). 172.82.50.67 (talk) 13:25, 22 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I see the in Kingdom of Hungary many cities names are German. It should be use appropriate names according to the timeline. OrionNimrod (talk) 13:35, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Was this really a Mongol victory?
The infobox currently lists a Mongol victory as the outcome. As per body text, the Mongols were driven back eventually, and even the infobox already states: "Eventual Mongol withdrawal from Central Europe (1242)." Considering that, shouldn't we use something like "Initial Mongol victory" and "Eventual Mongol withdrawal from Central Europe"? That seems more accurate. For comparison, we don't list Cortador (talk) 06:54, 22 May 2024 (UTC)