Talk:Battle of Legnica

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Poland Portal
Battle of Legnica is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Poland on Wikipedia. To participate simply edit the article or see our current projects and discussions. On the main project page we have some tools to help you out. Don't hesitate to ask questions!
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
Middle Ages Icon
Middle Ages Portal
Battle of Legnica is part of WikiProject Middle Ages, a project for the community of Wikipedians who are interested in the Middle Ages. For more information, see the project page and the newest articles.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Article Grading:
The article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
WikiProject Middle Ages To do:

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] The Mongols In Europe

In the early days the Mongols were a mix of Christians, Muslims and Buddhists, all of them obedient to the Great Khan and ready to plunder the rich Islamic lands. There is no obvious reason why the Southern Sung should not have held out. Nor why the Mongols might not have conquered as far as Egypt and broken the back of the Islamic world.

This was the plan of the third Great Khan, Guyuk or Kuyuk, who favoured Nestorianism, a form of Christianity considered a heresy by Western Christians. It was continued by the succeeding Great Khan Mongke/ Mangku, who favoured Buddhism. He was also the son of a Nestorian-Christian mother, as were his younger brothers Khubilai and Hulegu. Together they tried to work with Latin-Christian Europe against the Islamic world. Envoys were sent:

"They carried a letter in which the Mongol commander, who claimed that he had been charged by his khan to protect all Christians in western Asia and rebuild their churches, declared that he prayed to God for the success of the French crusade. This assurance of Mongol good will was surprising enough, but the letter also asked the French king to listen to the words which the ambassadors had been told to say to him, and when they had pleased him further by announcing that the Mongol khan had been baptized as a Christian and that Eljigidei had followed his example, the Nestorians delivered the message which their commander had not dared to put in writing. Eljigidei intended to march against Baghdad at the end of the winter, and if the King of France were to coincide his landing in Egypt with that attack, the two most powerful rulers in Islam would be unable to come to each other's assistance and the victorious armies of France and the Mongol Empire would advance on two fronts to liberate the Holy Land…. The story of Kuyuk's baptism was almost certainly true since it is recorded by the Moslem historian Juvaini, but it is more likely to have been motivated by self-interest than by profound conviction, and the alliance of the French crusaders with the newly-Christian khan was far more to the advantage of the Mongol Empire than Christendom. Neither Kuyuk nor Eljigidei believed that King Louis was capable of defeating the Sultan of Egypt, but at least he could keep him busy while their armies attacked Baghdad. (The Devils’s Horsemen, page 155)

The Mongols offered a remarkable chance to settle the centuries-old war between Muslims and Christians. But Catholic Europe was at least as interested in taking advantage of the misfortunes of Russia’s Orthodox Christians.

This was the context of the formidable Alexander Nevsky, ancestor of the later Tsars and best known in Britain from the Eisenstein film which celebrated his historic victory over the Teutonic Knights. This order of warrior-monks had been founded to root out residual European paganism, but continued as an aggression against both Orthodox Christians and Catholic Poles, before its final defeat at Tannenberg/Grunwald two centuries later by an alliance of Poles, Russians, Tartars and the last survivors of Europe’s Baltic pagans.

"The other important aspect of the great flowering of European knighthood was the number of military-religious orders, such as the Knights Templars and Hospitallers and the Teutonic Knights. Their lives were bound by religious ritual, celibacy, vows of poverty, devotion to the Church and the restoration of the Holy Land to Christianity. In short, they were monks who were also professional soldiers. So the ideals of European knighthood were aesthetically quite sophisticated. But as an army they employed terribly crude methods.

"The European horseman was far less mobile than his Mongol counterpart. He could not manage delicate or intricate manoeuvres; the day was usually decided on the basis of a rather basic head-on clash. Once the charge had taken place, most knights dismounted (or were brought down) and combat continued with blade and shield in ferocious hand-to-hand combat… The knights themselves were not trained officers, and their individual combat skills were of no use when leading men into battle. The size of their retinue was an indication of their wealth, not their ability, and there was no clear chain of command down from the commander-in-chief…

"By contrast the Mongols were a tightly disciplined fighting machine, in which each soldier knew his place and his responsibilities. He did not fight as an individual, but as part of a massive formation that was led in and out of well-drilled manoeuvres. When the Mongol army advanced they approached as a series of long single ranks, made up of a number of units. The first two consisted of heavy cavalry, followed by three ranks of light cavalry. Out on either flank and up front were further, smaller detachments of light cavalry… The Mongols also preferred to manoeuvre the enemy's ranks to exactly where they wanted them... The sight of the Mongols in flight was a temptation that most enemy commanders could not resist.. By the time the enemy had reached the killing ground, their ranks were already spread out and made easy targets. (Storm From the East: From Genghis Khan to Khubilai Khan. Page 92 93)

Military orders like the Templars and Teutonic Knights imposed more order than Europe was used to. But only in the 16th and 17th centuries and in imitation of Roman models did European troops start matching the orderliness and discipline of the historic Mongols.

Unlike the other princes, Alexander's allegiance to the Mongols was genuine: he was too devoutly orthodox to abandon his faith for the sake of an army, and whereas Galicia and Volynia, to whom Vladimir and Suzdal had been allied by the marriage of Grand Duke Andrew to the daughter of Prince Daniel, could expect willing assistance from the threatened Catholic kingdoms of Poland and Hungary, the only neighbours of Novgorod were the Teutonic Knights and the Swedes, against whose aggressive ambitions Mongol mastery was a powerful defence… Alexander Nevsky was, therefore, the first to go to Sarai and offer his allegiance to Batu's Christian son Sartak, who had been given responsibility for the government of Russia. (The Devils’s Horsemen, page 160-161)

As well as protecting Russian Orthodoxy, the Mongols almost did complete the Crusader’s mission of evicting Islam from the lands where their religion had begun:

"From the Mongol perspective, a campaign into Persia and Syria was the logical pursuit of their philosophy of world domination. But the essential point behind Mongke's objectives was that further expansion in the west was going to happen in the Middle East, not in Europe. For centuries the Mongols had been familiar with the great influence that Muslim merchants from Persia and the Gulf area enjoyed throughout Asia. More significant was the reputation of Persian scientists, astronomers, astrologers, mathematicians and technologists, who were without equal anywhere in the world. Apart from the sciences, there were also the arts: painting, carpet making, music and poetry. The Islamic Middle East was by any standards a vastly sophisticated, wealthy and advanced civilization, and the Mongols could hardly allow it to flourish outside of their sphere. Mongke's objectives were obvious: by invading both the Sung empire in southern China and Persia, he was attempting to place the two great civilizations of the era under Mongol control. It stands as one of the most grandiose plans for world domination ever conceived.

"One obvious conclusion that can be drawn from Mongke's decision was that the Mongols appeared to have lost interest in Europe. Indeed, there is no evidence that after Batu's withdrawal from eastern Europe the Mongols ever saw Europe as a prize worthy of the effort it would have taken to conquer it. Although the pronouncements of the Great Khans continued to reiterate the conviction that it was the Mongols' God-given right to rule the world, and that all kings were obliged to offer tribute to the Great Khan, the reality was that in global terms Europe really did not matter that much. (Storm From The East, page 170)

Europe’s best feature from the Mongol point for view was as a source of allies in an assault against Islamic powers. Crusader power was still considerable, and the brothers Mongke, Hulegu and Kubilai had a Nestorian Christian mother who may have influenced their attitudes more than their grandfather Chinghis Khan.

See also the Battle of Ain Jalut, Goliath Spring.

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] "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)

[edit] About the controversy

I found this site: [1] 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.

[edit] 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.[2] 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)

[edit] 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)