Talk:Mongol invasion of Europe/Archive 1

Second Mongol Invasion of Hungary (1284)
What the hell is this?

"the Mongols losing much of their invading force due to the use of combat trained moon rats, from the moon. "

Combat trained moon rats, from the moon? I'm no history buff, but I don't think that happened. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.101.110.166 (talk • contribs) 16:10, September 6, 2006


 * ''You clearly don't know very much about history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.118.0.110  (talk • contribs) 13:10, March 25, 2007

image source
What is the source of the image accompanying this article? It does not seem very authentic.

It would be better to use a historic image. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Txensen (talk • contribs) 15:49, August 23, 2006

Fiction
Has a reversal of this piece of history been the basis of some relevant piece of alternate history? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.20.17.84  (talk • contribs) 05:18, September 25, 2006

Strong concerns
This entire article is a pile of crap. How do we get this whole thing completly rewritten? Its a disgrace to wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmyjimjam (talk • contribs) 00:13, June 18, 2007

THIS ENTIRE ARTICLE WAS DEVISED BY A HUNGARIAN
- VAGUE STATEMENTS REFERENCING ARBITRARY EVENTS OF SUCCESS IN PART OF THE HUNGARIAN ARMY DURING THE MONGOL CAMPAIGN ... ALL THROUGHOUT THE ARTICLE IN RANDOM PLACES. WITHOUT A SINGLE CITATION NOR REFERENCE.

- AN ABSOLUTE DEARTH OF REFERENCES AND CITATIONS SUPPORTING THE MANY SO CALLED EVENTS OF EUROPEAN SUCCESSES IN DEFENDING THEMSELVES AGAINST THE MONGOLS.

- THIS WHOLE ARTICLE IS FRAMED IN A STORYTELLING FORMAT AND IS COMPLETELY DISORGANIZED, IT NEEDS TO HAVE MORE OF A FACTUAL BASIS AND HAVE SPECIFIC REFERENCES.

KEEP THE HUNGARIAN IN CHECK. THIS ARTICLE IS AN ABSOLUTE TRAVESTY AND PERPETUATES THE COMMON STEREOTYPE OF WIKIPEDIA ARTICLES AS NOT BEING CREDIBILITY. Wernergerman (talk) 23:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Speed kills. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.45.222 (talk) 00:18, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Needs cleanup and wikifying
This article is speculative, it misses references and it seems to me that it contains a lot of material present in other articles. It also needs categories. GhePeU 12:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I have begun the clean up -- references and sourcing are in place, with an external link to a great article on the Polish defeat by the Mongols -- anyone with any doubt the Europeans could have resisted a Mongol invasion in force should read it. Categories will be added also.old windy bear 13:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * '''In the section about the third invasion of Europe, it attempts to explain that the reason for the Mongols being unsuccssful was due to the fact that there was only 20,000 of them sent to raid Eastern Europe, but this doesn't add up considering the fact that the exact same number of Mongols claimed to have won the Battle of Legnica.


 * This whole area needs reexamination I think.''' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.21.231 (talk • contribs) 00:38, March 12, 2006

Prayer
I read somewhere that the Christians of the time added to some prayer (Paternoster?) "and deliver us fromthe warth of the Mongols". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.20.17.84 (talk • contribs) 05:16, September 25, 2006


 * It may be that they added it to a prayer, but I am pretty sure it wasn't the Pater Noster (the Lord's Prayer). --Legis (talk - contributions) 17:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Disputed
Parts of this article appear to be quite good, but I have tagged the article as disputed, since it's not clear if the above concerns have been addressed. I also agree that the article needs to do a much better job of sourcing. Parts are also very confusing. I haven't gone through it in detail myself, but I did notice right off that the lead section doesn't even make a clear distinction that the attacks were being made by the Golden Horde as opposed to just "the Mongols". I think that this article can eventually be quite good, but enough concerns have been raised that I think we need to flag it as disputed until it gets a thorough going-over. --Elonka 04:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * As far as I can tell, those concerns that were actionable have been fixed. Obviously, "concerns" of the form put forward in the last two headings above this one can't be addressed, because they don't name any specific problems. So which specific issues were it that made you add the disputed tag? Not saying it's necessarily wrong, just that at a first glance, I can't find any real dispute. Note that in that region, the Golden Horde during its time pretty much were "the Mongols". Maybe a "cleanup" tag would be more appropriate? --Latebird 06:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Contradictory
At the beginning, there is a sourced statement that Subutai wanted to attack Austria but his plans were interrupted by Ogedei Khan. After an unsourced claim in the part about the invasion of Hungary that the Hungarian resistance counted for nothing, it states that the Mongols were never interested in expanding Westward. This is not sourced while the statement to the contrary is. I also believe this has a strong anti-Hungarian POV, without sourcing the statements that support this sentiment.Shield2 05:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Ethnocentrism
The last sentence:

Had the Great Khan Ogodei not died, and Batu had decided to proceed westward, the French King would have found Paradise.

what does finding paradise mean?

sounds like an ethnocentric taunt... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.7.37.221 (talk • contribs) 17:23, August 18, 2005


 * It's a well known fact that the Mongols were the most powerful force in Eurasia at the time. Statements about the Mongolians destroying Europe have been echoed in many other related articles in Wikipedia.  -unsigned —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lengis (talk • contribs) 03:14, January 31, 2006


 * It is a bookend to the statement in the introduction �The famous remark of the French King that he was going to fight the Tartars and would either send them back to hell or be himself sent to paradise was a sign of the fear the Mongol invasions aroused.� So perhaps it is a little too wry and mischevious for an encyclopedia entry, but it is not an �ethnocentric taunt�. -- LamontCranston, 0:36 UTC, 25 Sep 2005

The statement is indeed a bookend to the The famous remark of the French King that he was going to fight the Tartars and would either send them back to hell or be himself sent to paradise was a sign of the fear the Mongol invasions aroused -- this can be found in Saunders, J.J. -- The History of the Mongol Conquests, among other works. The article does need referencing and cleaning up, but the blunt fact is that the Mongols destroyed the armies of Poland Humgry in a 2 day period with relatively no casalties on their part! Every military historian who has studied the era believes they would have destroyed Europe with ease, and only internal family infighting after Ogedei's death halted that invasion.old windy bear 13:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, but Poland and Hungary were the easy parts of Europe so to speak. Further West there were more woods, rivers, a wetter climate and most importantly lots of fortified towns and castles. The Hungarians were rather successful against the Mongols until the catastrophic battle and similar tactics combined with better external circumstances in Germany, Italy and France would have seriously hampered the Mongols. Religious fanaticism could've been problematic, too. Not to mention the fact that with an enemy that had a supply line of 5000 miles through enemy territory (the Russian regions remained unruly) the Europeans could afford loss ratios of 3:1 or more.
 * In other words I'd say that the Soviet Unions outlook in 1941 was significantly worse than Europe's chances in 1241, jm2c
 * (btw. I removed the quintuple posting below) (82.135.66.208 19:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC))

Poland was fragmented at the time however, do not forget that the Mongols launched an unsuccessful raid in 1287, led by Talabuga and Nogai Khan. Lublin, Mazovia, Sandomierz and Sieradz were successfully raided, but the Mongols were defeated at Kraków. The force sent was not sufficient to meet the full Polish army. It burned a few small towns, and fled when the Polish army was mustered. The Poles stopped the advance of The Golden Horde at Krakow and the Turks under General Sobieski in 1643 at the Battle of Vienna. That is twice the Poles stopped the west from being overrun by Barbarians...and don't you forget it! OG from LA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.88.201.100 (talk) 20:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

How was that statement an indication of fear?

The statement is indeed a bookend to the The famous remark of the French King that he was going to fight the Tartars and would either send them back to hell or be himself sent to paradise was a sign of the fear the Mongol invasions aroused

'''Do you think people that are prepared to fight to the death are "fearful" people? and its hardly like people in times of war don't say such things''' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.21.97 (talk • contribs) 00:42, February 15, 2006

"   Yes, but Poland and Hungary were the easy parts of Europe so to speak. Further West there were more woods, rivers, a wetter climate and most importantly lots of fortified towns and castles. The Hungarians were rather successful against the Mongols until the catastrophic battle and similar tactics combined with better external circumstances in Germany, Italy and France would have seriously hampered the Mongols. Religious fanaticism could've been problematic, too. Not to mention the fact that with an enemy that had a supply line of 5000 miles through enemy territory (the Russian regions remained unruly) the Europeans could afford loss ratios of 3:1 or more."

In response to the wooded areas and wetter climate, i don't see why this would negatively affect the Mongols calvary based armies at all. Medieval Europe at the time was DOMINATED ENTIRELY by the use of heavy calvary for another hundred years. It is ridiculous to think that they wouldn't do well just because they were from Mongolia, which has a wet climate, although is more of valleys/plains. The other piece to note, is that they had, except for possibly England, the best bows you could get, and were adept at firing while riding, the heavy infantry advantage here is thus negated for the most part. Really the only thing I would think that would maybe screw up their advantages would be if they were unfamiliar in dealing with pikes, in which they would have to invade England to really see their popular use until another 50 years or more later.

But, you must remember the mongol war machine WAS built for steppe warfare were heavy cavalry would be ineffective vs. horse archers but the in dense forests of europe it's the other way around for instance, if knights were ineffective as a military unit then how did german heavy cavalry crush the mygar(spelling) light cavalry and horse archers at the battle of lechfied(spelling again)? I believe the khan would have found the holy roman empire not worth the trouble of wasting mongol lives on germany while more imminent threats lay waiting but i'm not denying that the mongols could have conquered europe i'm just saying it would'nt be easy and might end in disaster. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.221.243.4 (talk) 03:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * In response to the wooded areas and wetter climate, i don't see why this would negatively affect the Mongols calvary based armies at all. Medieval Europe at the time was DOMINATED ENTIRELY by the use of heavy calvary for another hundred years.


 * It affects horse archers (which were hardly used at all in Europe) and especially horse archers with composite bows because they degrade faster. It's not like they fall apart after a week, but it adds to the logistic nightmare.


 * It is ridiculous to think that they wouldn't do well just because they were from Mongolia, which has a wet climate, although is more of valleys/plains.


 * Here you're seriously misinformed. Quote from another page (just google for mongolia and climate): "The average rainfall 200-220 mm. In Mongolia there are 250 sunny days a year, often with clear cloudless skies. Therefore Mongolia is known to the world as a country of “Blue Sky”." Average rainfall in e.g. Germany is 4 times that value and it's distributed equally instead of concentrated during a few months.


 * The other piece to note, is that they had, except for possibly England, the best bows you could get, and were adept at firing while riding, the heavy infantry advantage here is thus negated for the most part.


 * European heavy cavalry was too heavily armored to go down to anything but huge amounts of arrows (there are some mid-east sources from the crusades on that) or at point blank range so we're back to the logistics issue. Especially if you lose the battle and can't recycle your old arrows. Good arrows aren't that easy to make. That's one reason the musket displaced the bow so quickly. A child can roll musket rounds.


 * Also you completely ignored the part where I said: "and most importantly lots of fortified towns and castles." Lots of stone fortifications where a major part of Hungary's successes against the Mongols later on and the western parts of Europe were more heavily fortified earlier. The Mongols would've had to choose between assaulting every fortified town, castle and monastery (you can't afford those kinds of losses from the sheer number of such places you found in Europe) or sieging it which nails them down and negates their speed advantage compared to European armies. Barring major tactical mistakes (there would've been a few of those but not that many. They weren't completely retarded. Sooner or later you learn) a stand up fight against European armies would've been very costly for the Mongols (once again, it's not about whether you win or lose. It's about whether you can afford your losses. The Russians lost their way to victory against Napoleon).


 * And finally, it's not like pikes were invented in England or Scotland. But that's besides the point. Until the tercio of the early/mid 16th century pike formations would've been very vulnerable to horse archers. It was the Spaniard's use of armor and shot that made pike squares the dominant battle formation for a hundred years (and that was also the time when Russia's border with the Mongols started to move eastward)

93.104.112.53 (talk) 01:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * P.S.: Just to make this clear: Had the Great Khan directed all his might towards Europe with the express mission to conquer it or die trying, I wouldn't wanna bet on Europe (i.e. had the Mongols relocated to Ukraine and Europe played to role of Sung China). But we are talking about a semi-conceivable military expedition by perhaps 150000 men from their base in the far east to extend the borders (i.e. Ögedei not dying when he did).

Mongol invasion of Russia should be described.
--79.111.179.162 (talk) 06:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. It's totally preposterous to write about the topic as if Kievan Rus was not in Europe. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 15:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I second, although Rus was always on the Europe-Asian border, so it likely belongs to both topics. Do note that we have Mongol invasion of Rus'.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Rus is actually quite a bit away from the Europe-Asia border, there are Finnic, Ugrian as well Turkic peoples filling ina big fat barrier between Rus and the geographical definition of Asia. Germany is closer to Asia than most of Rus (take a ruler to a map and compare the distance between the most easterly major Rus settlement to Asia, Murom, and run the same distance from the Bosphorus). Bulgaria, Serbia, etc, are a great deal closer, and if Rus is half-Asian then there's no reason not to declare France, Spain and Italy half African. ;) If you think about it, it's not really a conceptualization that makes any sense until the 17th century onwards. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 19:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * In medieval age all Orthodox states (except Constantinople) were considered as Asian countries. The Ural-border theory is a modern age idea. --Celebration1981 (talk) 18:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think this holds for Bulgaria. I also don't think the Teutonic Knights on the Peipus lake thought they fought against Asians. Yaan (talk) 10:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * What is real European or not, it was considered by western scientist of the era--Celebration1981 (talk) 13:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC).
 * Can you give an example of one such western scientist of the era who said that Russia is in Asia? Maybe you could also indent your contributions, this makes it much easier to understand who replies to whom. Yaan (talk) 13:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * An interesting point, and it's always good to remember the difference between Rus and Russia. On another level - and I agree it's not relevant in this particular discussion - it is interesting to compare cultural diffs. There is an interesting section on those in the mentioned article.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Picture
This is not the battle for Vladimir, this is arriving of Yaroslav from Kiev to Vladimir AFTER INVASION!--Maximalist (talk) 08:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Is anybody here?--Maximalist (talk) 07:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Probe
Batu sent 2 columns to Poland as vanguards when he was in modern Belarus (Please not confused with Baidar and Orda). They couldn't be big detachment because European sources say they were just the Mongol vanguard--Enerelt (talk) 06:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

WHERE ON EARTH ARE THE CITATIONS, AND WHAT'S WITH THE VAGUE REFERENCES TO " SOME ", " MANY " , " HE " ...
Most of these strange inclusions support statements that emphasize Hungarian glory more or less ... before you know it this Hungarian is going to rewrite the entire Mongol history and Ghengis Khan will be referenced as a German - hey, after all , the Hungarians managed to twist history so that they all believe that Atilla is Caucasian ..... Wernergerman (talk) 23:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Introduction -- Get Real!!!
Had the Mongols sent the forces which devastated Poland and Hungary on into the German states and France, they probably would have destroyed them as easily as they had the Rus principalities.

This states that the Mongols would have destroyed the Holy Roman Empire and France, at the height of Imperial and Frankish power! WTF? IP Address 15:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Neither was at the height of their power and the common consensus amongst historians - whether specializing in the Mongols, the Middle East or Europe - is that the Mongols would most likely have conquered Europe or at least made significant inroads had events not prevented this invasion. siarach 15:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's accurate to say that this is the common consensus among historians. It is clear that they had no trouble dealing with Poland and Hungary, but further east the Mongols would have encountered mountainous terrain, poor pastureland, and extensive fortification.  The extent to which they would have been able to conquer and establish control is not clear. siafu 00:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... Yes, the Holy Roman Emperor would have been taken down by the Khan. The Crusades were not the most highly organised event in Christendom, ever?! I wonder what Genghis Khan would do in the case of Charles Martel or Charlemagne--it appears that the old Romans were ineffective at stopping the Hunnish onslaught. IP Address 22:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Well for the sake of argument i dont think either Charles Martel or his grandson would have been able to stand in the way of Chingiz Khan - far more powerful and advanced princes and empires than them/theirs had fallen to the Mongols. Of course with alternate history there can never be a right answer and who knows what would have happened - im sure few would have predicted anything other than the continuation of Mongol conquests in the build up to Ayn Jalut but obviously they were halted permanently against the odds. siarach 21:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the vast lands of Russia did not have a powerful government at the time. [But, it was stronger than under the Goths before them--which is why the Mongols could not repeat the Hunnish conquest, besides the fact that the Huns and Mongols focused on two separate areas] Everything was spaced out, with a thin infrastructure and enormous amounts of peasantry. That is why the Khans destroyed the Kievan Rus. There was no shortage of wealth and power in the West during this time, which is why the West was able to afford the continual Crusading for centuries. As always, the vastness of the Steppes only swallowed up her enemies. I believe that this is a moot point and that eventually, even the Ottoman relic known as Turkey will be no more. IP Address 23:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, historians generally avoid counterfactuals. There's no way to know what could have happened.Fokion (talk) 02:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Its a lot of guessing and speculations here. Ok the mongols crushed the Song dynasty and the muslim kingdoms in the east. But they were stopped both in Egypt and Japan. Why is it so unthinkable that they would have been stopped by the germans that was far more advanced than the russians? One of the reasons why the other countries in east fall, was because the mongols destroyed the irrigation systems, what was there to destroy in Europe? Open plains was the ultimate area for their battles, not dense european woods. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.237.216.124 (talk) 18:22, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Time to close this dispute?
Most, if not all, of the complaints, some two years old, have long been addressed and solved. Keeping the neutrality dispute badge on the page is misleading. DJProFusion (talk) 20:54, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree - two years later, and this article has severe problems. HammerFilmFan (talk) 19:58, 15 July 2010 (UTC)HammerFilmFan

I agree with the sentiments of the commenter above.
I agree with the sentiments of the commenter above. Many of the articles in which Hungary is even vaguely mentioned seem to be somehow puffed up by over exaggerating Hungarian efforts / forces. Check the articles on the Middle Ages and many articles concerning battles of the Hungarian army. I too think it (and all the rest of them) needs to be completely rewritten. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jensonmorton (talk • contribs) 23:52, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * yeah this is complete garbage, referring to major Russian principalities like Kiev and Ryazan as "miscellaneous tribes of less organized proto-Russian people??" what the fuck 99.255.117.65 (talk) 06:45, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Mongol invasion of actual territories of Romania should be described
In 1241, when the Mongol Invasions occured, Transylvania, a part of the actual Romania's territory, was part of the Hungarian Empire. Other parts of the actual Romania are Walachia, Moldavia and Dobrogea. The Mongol invasion affected first of all Moldova and Wallachia and had a big impact on the Romanian history and culture and had destroyed all cultural and economical records from that time. The main target of the Golden Horde was the Hungarian Empire. The Romanian's crops and goods seem to have been a source of suply for the Golden Horde. Also tens of thousands of Romanians lost their lives trying to defend the territories from the Mongols
 * see Romania in the Early Middle Ages ♫Razool

Modova and Walachia didn't exist in the XIII century. Cumans formed state on these territories. Look Oxford and other maps about Europe in XIII century. http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&um=1&sa=1&q=europe+13th+century&aq=1&oq=europe+13 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.111.185.112 (talk) 14:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

there was no rumania, nor rumanians back then. mongol invasion destroyed rumanian cultural and economical records from that time??? maybe they never existed. rumanias came later to settle the areas left uninhabited by mongols. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.21.185.130 (talk) 11:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Invasion of Hungary
The whole paragraph should be reformulated. The outcome of the campaign is somehow mixed with the outcome of the battle of Sajo/Muhi. The battle was lost but the war won. According to chinese sources the Hungarian campaign was the blodiest for the Mongols. The King was not caught, the resistance in the strongholds wasn't broken and the occupation was a great failure for the Mongols. However the Mongols killed 25% of the population the Kingdom strenghten in the next 100 year (2 month after the Mongol invasion Hungarian army reached Wienna and reconquered 3 counties). The Mongol army were withdrawn, no garissions were left behind (contrary to Russia) the ellection was just a pretext: Batu was not recognised as legal heir of the Great Khan. Moreover after the battle in 1241 they stopped at Danube. Why? Was a river obstacle for a light cavalry army?? --fz22 11:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * your comment is absolutely wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.152.49  (talk • contribs) 03:42, December 5, 2006

feel free to share your arguments. BTW the story with the Hungarians' laager doesn't go togehter either. This technique was invented by the Hussites two century later. --fz22 09:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd certainly like to know where it is stated that Hungarian campaign was particularly bloody for Mongols compared to Khwarezmian one (where they actually lost at least one major battle), or campaign against Song Empire (which took 40 years). It seems dubious anyway that Batu - weakest of the Mongol Khans - would plan another major invasion just one year after he had conquered his own - still unconsolitated - realm (ie. Russia). As for why Mongols stopped for summer - likely to prepare for winter, which was their preferred campaign season. Lets not forget that Batu's own Mongol contingent numbered only around 4000 troops, of which he is said to have lost around 30 in Battle of Mohi. Extrapolating from there, Mongol casualties in that battle were perhaps 1%. --Mikoyan21 (talk) 00:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

This whole section is written out of order, I do not want to take the time to reformulate it. It looks like a high school student put his historical essay on here. This is savage writong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.210.46.190 (talk) 22:32, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

THIS PART IS FAKE
"More than 200 years before the Mongol invasion, the Hungarian army (descendants of the Magyars) was based on light cavalry. An interesting fact is that the former tactics of the Hungarian army were similar to those of the Mongols, but had been largely forgotten by 1241. One of the major light cavalry tactics was a sudden rush on the enemy position. However, if the enemy held (or reformed), light cavalry was insufficient to achieve a victory. Another significant tactic was a feigned retreat, in which the light cavalry would attack the enemy and then withdraw, apparently fleeing. The enemy would ideally pursue and become disorganized, leaving themselves open to attack by units hidden in reserve. The light cavalry would then reform and attack the flanks or rear of the enemy forces. The Hungarians stopped using these tactics during the 11th century.[why?]

In the late 11th century, the majority of the Hungarian army consisted of mounted sergeants (heavy knights) and infantry. The Hungarian allies, some of whom still utilized the light cavalry combat style, included the Cumans, who had settled down in Hungary not long before the Mongol invasion. They were tasked with providing the light cavalry force in the Hungarian army. However tension erupted when Mongol troops first broke into Hungary: The Hungarians, frustrated by their own helplessness, took revenge on the Cumans, whom they accused of being Mongol spies. "

The reality: 1. Hungarians and Magyars are the same thing. 2. Hungarians didn't forget steppe tactics. This is an old, denied theory. They had vast number of horse archers even in the time of the battle of Nicopolis, 1397. Who have the time read A tatárjárás by B. Szabó János. 3. "frustrated by their own helplessness, took revenge on the Cumans" Real reasons: the Cumans were violent against local people and their nomadic lifestyle was hurtful for the Hungarian peasants but the king favoured the Cumans. Second the Mongol forces used the Cuman troops from the steppe as part of their tactics and that's why people tought them spies. Csatádi (talk) 14:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I've removed the contested section. Feel free to add the correct info into the article with reliable sources. - M0rphzone (talk) 10:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Maps Section Empty
I notice that the article has a section labeld, "Maps," but that seems to be empty. I looked through the article revision history but a cursory check didn't show any activity on that section. Is someone planning on adding maps? If not, may I suggest removing the section?

A quick search for images of "map of Mongol invasion of Europe" leads to a plethora of links, not all of which are on Wikipedia. Perhaps one might add reference links to some of these external sites? Sbeitzel (talk) 02:18, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Mongol invasion of Europe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050428125414/http://mirror.veus.hr:80/stamps/1992/bula.html to http://mirror.veus.hr/stamps/1992/bula.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 12:57, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Did the Mongols conquered Croatia?
There's this conflict between anons concerning whether or not the Mongols really conquered Croatia. Bela IV and his territories did became part of the Empire, but wikipedia articles here states that Croatia did its best to defend itself using the advantage of their fortresses, although many of its parts suffered greatly. I find this book that states that the Mongols did "invaded Croatia" but I need further opinions on the subject.Bulls123 (talk) 13:18, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * No, the Mongol presence in Croatia did not last long, but much of the land was ravaged. See also Croatia in the union with Hungary. Tzowu (talk) 14:14, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Did Wenceslaus I of Bohemia actually fought the Mongols at Klodzko
While I was reading about a bunch of European rulers who fought the Mongolian Invasion, I came upon the article of Wenceslaus I of Bohemia which was being revised at that time. I found an intersting note that says that he "successfully repelled a raid on Bohemia by forces serving under Batu Khan and Subutai of the Mongol Empire as part of the Mongol invasion of Europe." That made me thinking of adding this little tidbit in this article.

However, after trying to research the subject, I found out that there are historians who believe that Wenceslaus fought the Mongols in Bohemia, and there are those who say that he didn't. So far I've never got any kind of conclusion to this argument, so can anyone please tell me if it is really true that Wenceslaus defeated the Mongols or not. Godzilladude123 (talk) 14:45, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I would suggest trying to find out which are the primary sources which cover Wenceslaus I's reign. Disagreements between historians often depend on specific interpretations of primary sources, their beliefs about the reliability of said sources, and, in some cases, whether the source is genuine.

For an example from Byzantine history, the traditional narrative for the Siege of Constantinople (860) (and Byzantine victory by divine intervention) is highly questionable. Several of the details of this siege are known from an overly pious account by 9th-century chronicler-monk George Hamartolos (who was probably alive during the siege) and a second account by 12th century chronicler Nestor the Chronicler (who seems to have created his work by reinterpreting material from various older chronicles). Both are considered of suspect reliability. A near contemporary account by 9th-century Pope Nicholas I implies that this was a raid and not a siege, and 11th-century chronicler John the Deacon pretty much claims that raiders looted a suburb of Constantinople and then retreated on their own.

From a much older example, the Battle of Kadesh (1274 BC), the "best documented battle in all of ancient history" is described in rather biased primary sources. Egyptian sources mention a hard-fought Egyptian victory over the Hittites, but then fail to explain why the Egyptian army retreated without achieving any of its campaign goals. Hittite sources mention a Hittite victory over the Egyptians, but are surprisingly vague about how they accomplished that, and do not explain why the Hittites did not press their advantage. Several modern historians suspect that the battle was a draw and that the twin declarations of victory were propaganda accounts. Dimadick (talk) 23:38, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I do agree with Dimadick. I found vague information about two battles fought by Wenceslaus I against Mongols 1241. At Kladsko (Bohemia) and at Morava river near Děvín castle (border between Moravia - Hungary). While successfull defence of Moravian cities of Olomouc and Brno is quite documented, those two battles are not. See books by Bevin Alexander: How great generals win and by Vlastimil Vondruška : Přemyslid Epopee. R.Svoboda, 25.7.2017

Better maps
I am talking in a time when the state oof the article is this one. We basically have only one map, by the way repeated as it is present in the infobox and later in a larger version down at the article. The map hardly shows any incursions and expansion into Europe besides what is European Russia and a bit of Ukraine, while, in fact, by reading the article, we see them at the doors of Vienna and waging wars all over Central-Eastern Europe (poland, Hungary, Bulgaria, Serbia, Croatia, Czech lands, Romanian lands, etc.) Dont we have a better map? FkpCascais (talk) 20:55, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

A second issue has to do with the fact that I am asking why is the war against the Kingdom of Serbia (medieval) in 1291 and its results ignored in the infobox? Basically, seems that after failing against Hungary, Mongols counted with their allies, Bulgarians, to make one last attempt to setle in Europe, and they played it all against Serbia, and lost, and that really marks the end of Mongol aspirations. I think the infobox should definitelly include that event as last important one. FkpCascais (talk) 21:06, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Western Europe saved?
How was western Europe "saved" when the Mongols' invasion propagated the Black Death which led to a huge death toll in Western Europe?216.254.172.202 (talk) 17:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This is just not true. The Mongol invasion was in the 1240s, the Black Death was in the 1340s. While I don't doubt the transcontinental contacts established under Mongol rule helped it spread, are there sources that claim a disease of this kind could not have spread from China to Europe before the 13th/14th century?


 * And I don't think the Black Death destroyed any major cities, as the Mongols did in Russia and Central Asia. Yaan (talk) 18:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The Mongols were still involved in Europe in the 1300s and according to Black_Death, they likely spread the disease. While it's great that the Western European buildings were not destroyed, it's quite misleading to call Western Europe "saved" when there was such a catastrophic death toll that resulted from the Mongol armies' movements.207.112.59.175 (talk) 01:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * And I though the death toll resulted from microbes, unsanitatary conditions and trade. The sources at the Black death article do not seem to be in particularly good shape. But it seems to imply it was not only Mongol armies who spread the siege, but also Genoese traders, merchants along the silk road, a lot of infected Europeans etc.Yaan (talk) 14:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I changed "saved" to "avoided Mongol attacks" in the latter part of the sentence. It's OK to represent the subjective Hungarian view using the word "saved" if that is what they believe, but when counterbalancing with a more general and objective view in the latter part of the sentence a more neutral term is needed. It's not by any means an established fact that the rest of Europe was helpless and in need of some external force/event to save it. This sentence deals with a series of battles that never happened, all we can do is speculate. Abvgd (talk) 10:14, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

The section on "End of the Mongol Advance in Europe" contains a section about Carpini's travel time to the Mongol Empire. Since that is an argument made in Lindsey Stephen Pow's "Deep ditches and well-built walls" thesis, and the wording is a very close paraphrase of his argument, it would seem the proper thing to do to attribute it to the author who makes that argument in the footnote (Pow 19-21), since the argument is found there.

To add to the previous comment, it is specifically footnote 58 section, found in "End of the Mongol Advance in Europe" which contains a passage that seems to be paraphrased from Pow's "Deep ditches and well-built walls" thesis. If this was a common, existing theory, it would not have to be attributed, but since it appears to be original research, based on that author's study, with even the wording the same, it should be necessary to cite it, seeing as the same argument does not appear in other sources. Attribution is a value of wikipedia, so the editors should look into this issue. See Pow pp. 19-21 for comparison. It is an argument being stated here, based on an author's argument, and there is no attribution presently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.132.225.212 (talk) 23:14, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Other Needed Changes
The Golden Horde armies who invaded in the 1280's were very different than the full Mongol army in 1241. Nogai's forces were much smaller, more akin to a raid, and he lacked the siege equipment that was so critical to Mongol success. At this point the Golden Horde had already split completely with the Yuan Dynasty and was at war with the Yuan ally the Ilkhanates. Thus the invasion in the 1280's was more akin to a traditional nomadic incursion, in direct contrast to the more sophisticated Mongol army under Subedei.

Additionally, though this article is focused more on the Mongol side overall, more should be mentioned about King Bela's post 1241 reforms, since he was directly responsible for Hungary's much more impressive defense to raids after the initial invasion.

Lastly, the chronology under "Invasion of fragmented Poland" does not make sense and is convoluted. This section needs a complete rework.73.247.69.66 (talk) 08:54, 7 September 2017 (UTC)Baldwin


 * It's better to use the term Fragmented Poland because there was no unified country called Poland by then. The area was divided into separate warring kingdoms much like how Greece was divided into different city states. It's also very similar as to how we use the term Rus lands than Russian when describing the lands conquered by Mongols in the East. Godzilladude123 (talk) 12:56, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Mongolcentrism
COnstant editing of this article is getting out of hand. it was already perfectly neutral as it is until these anons came and started writing most of the article with Mongolian bias. There has been a very large increase of Mongol centric statements that are obviously unreferenced and uncited and a lot of opinions are written here rather than actual facts. Its going to take a while to clean up whoever did this damn mess, but I fear that an edit war is going to happen if other editors don't take action themselves. Godzilladude123 (talk) 16:24, 19 September 2017 (UTC)


 * If none of the issues in this article is addressed by tomorrow (Sept 21), I will revert the article back to its original neutral state. The article is now literally filled with statements and paragraphs that have no reference or citations at all, and at best are read like personal opinions rather than cited facts. Any references that were added either had no page number, no ISBNs and no actual publisher or publishing dates. Seriously it looks very bad now than it was before. Godzilladude123 (talk) 14:10, 20 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Since no one has fixed these problems its much better to revert them back. Some infos that did have good citations will remain, but the others has to go. Godzilladude123 (talk) 12:56, 21 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Fixed. While I did retain some infos, I still had doubts about Wallachia and Moldavia since its only reference is not even in English. Godzilladude123 (talk) 13:20, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Adding References and Fixing More Stuffs
I manage to fix any false and unreferenced statements after more than a week long revisions by anons, and finally removing that standards template, but the work is still not done. More citations are needed in the Hungary section, as well as "Later Campaigns". I'll try to add more but if anyone can put references in this article that would be nice. Godzilladude123 (talk) 14:43, 22 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Dear Godzilladude123! Godzilladude123  Could you take a look at this issue please (I am unable to edit)?  Basically an author made a unique argument in a freely available published monograph; the argument is currently referenced on this page without attribution to the scholar who made it.  On this page currently, the section entitled "End of the Mongol Advance in Europe" contains a paragraph about Carpini's travel time to the Mongol Empire. Since that is an argument made in Lindsey Stephen Pow's "Deep ditches and well-built walls" thesis, and the wording is a very close paraphrase at points, it would seem the proper thing to reference the original source of the argument in a footnote (Pow 19-21).  It appears to be original research, based on that author's study, with even the wording the same, it should be necessary to cite it, seeing as the argument is unique. Attribution is a value of Wikipedia as we all know.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Mongol invasion of Europe. 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://archive.is/20110427075859/https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/citd/RussianHeritage/4.PEAS/4.L/12.III.5.html to https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/citd/RussianHeritage/4.PEAS/4.L/12.III.5.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761577939_6/Croatia.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100323064005/http://portal.klis.com.hr/povijest-klisa/ to http://portal.klis.com.hr/povijest-klisa/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110718202355/http://www.casopis-gradjevinar.hr/dokumenti/200109/6.pdf to http://www.casopis-gradjevinar.hr/dokumenti/200109/6.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:53, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mongol invasion of Europe. 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/20131222201352/http://www.ucalgary.ca/applied_history/tutor/islam/mongols/goldenHorde.html to https://www.ucalgary.ca/applied_history/tutor/islam/mongols/goldenHorde.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:16, 23 January 2018 (UTC)