Talk:Battle of Mohi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	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.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces (periods and conflicts): Medieval warfare task force (c. 500–c. 1500)

	Middle Ages Portal Battle of Mohi 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 1 Factual errors 2 Need more references 3 Summary Table should be provided 4 Name spelling 5 POV Bias

[edit] Factual errors

Dear InFairness!

Thanks for correcting my grammer mistakes. My English is far from perfect.

But:

1. The Tartars systematicly destroyed Eastern Hungary (frmo Transylvania to the Danube line), but they didn't do this in Transdanubia. In western Hungary the Tartars only chased king Béla, and plundered only in their way, but not systematicly.

2. There were local organized forces, but these were small and they were unable to fight in open battle. These forces defended fortified points. (according to contemporary royal charters)

3. Trau (the modern Trogir) and Tengerfehérvár (present day Biograd no moru) are different towns. King Béla seek refugee in Trau.

4. We have no records of serious guerilla warfare.

5. Connecting the death of the Great khan and the Mongol withdrawal is a popular, but obsolote theory. Latest researches talk about heavy losses, lack of pasture instead.

(The election ofthe Great khan was only 1246, and Batu didn't take part. It is also questionable that the news of Ogodei death reached Hungary so soon.) see: D. Sinor - Mongols in the West (Journal of Asian History v33. n. 1. 1999)

6. The Hungarian army leaders did not forget the tactic of steppe nomads. It is also a popular, but false view. Hungarians demonstrably used these kind of tactics continuously before and after the Mongol Invasion. see: J. B. Szabó - Gondolatok a XI-XIV. századi magyar hadviselésről in Hadtörteneti Közlemények 1/2001. http://epa.oszk.hu/00000/00018/00016/03bszabo_en.htm (summary in English)

Please, restore the former text!

Bye, Raider

Dear, InFairness!

I think I waited enough for your answer. Tomorrow I will correct the above mistakes again. bye, Raider

[edit] Need more references

References should be provided for statements such as: "[t]he Hungarian army as well as irregulars from the countryside proved dangerous foes and Mongol losses were not insignificant". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hu Gadarn (talk • contribs)

This statement was not in the original version. Should we delete it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.183.150.41 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Summary Table should be provided

The article should begin with a summary table of the conflict as per other Wikipedia descriptions of military engagements (e.g. see Battle of the Somme). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hu Gadarn (talk • contribs)

[edit] Name spelling

Correct me if I'm wrong but is it not spelled "Muhi"? This is currently the modern spelling of the town in Hungary. I should know, it is my surname. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.28.215.246 (talk • contribs)

No it was originally called Mohi. Later this village was destroyed during the Ottoman wars. A modern neighbouring village change its name to Muhi to commemrate the old village. Muhi is a corrupted form. (But You are right in Hungarian historiography Mohi apperears as Muhi by historiographic tradition.) Raider

[edit] POV Bias

I don't know how intentional or otherwise it was, but in the 'The Battle' section, the Mongols are a) referred to several times as 'tartars' (I was under the impression that this is at least a mildly derogatory term, and in any case the separate Wikipedia article shows that a different spelling is the norm) and b) their army is called a 'horde'. Given the famous levels of organisation, discipline, training and general efficiency of Mongol armies at this point in history, I think the term 'horde' is unfair in that it expresses a stereotypical Westerner view of the Mongols as barbarians, and simply does not adequately describe the military formations in question. Would appreciate further examination of this terminology. 172.188.4.114 17:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Horde was the name of the Mongolian army at that time, they named it like that (e.g. Golden Horde). Not to use it because of the word's current meaning would be no NPOV, but simply stupid. Tatars were the name used for them widely at that time and referred still, thou there were different ethnic groups. --81.183.171.16 18:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually Horde means 'Ordu' (regular army) in Turkish. Possibly that's why mongol army was called a 'Horde' Ati7 07:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the POV BIAS. Calling the mongols "tartars" smells of ignorance and European prejudice. The tartars were an entirely different group of people conquered by the nomadic mongols. Calling them thus is not something that should EVER appear in an Encyclopedia. Secondly, this whole article seems like nothing more than the battle of Mohi Heath, quite possibly one of the greatest strategic victories in history, told through the eyes of the defeated polish army.

It reads like a explanations of why the Poles managed to lose, rather than an account of the military brilliance of Subudai (whose victory is comparable to Hannibal at Cannae) or the actual role or tactics of the mongol army. Rather, it seems to point the finger at who messed up on the polish side and lost the war. I think this is important mainly because Mohi Heath is considered one of the greatest military victories, and a work of brilliant generalship. Indeed, a group of nomadic horse archers (lightly armed) faced off against chain mailed and armour plated European Knights (the very best in the world in the Knight's Templar) and won. Won convincingly, and totally.

Persianlor

Oops. You are blaming the author calling the Mongols Tartars, while yourself continously call the Hungarians Polish? :D

To be ontopic, I can assure you, that the word Tartar is not a tiny bit derogatory. Why would it be? Is there any sign of using the word Tartar in a derogatory meaning, anywhere in Europe? It's only an 800 years old lingual heritage of a historic confusion. In Hungary, the invading Mongols were traditionally (but also mistakenly) thought to be Tartars, and exclusively in the context of the invasion, they are still called both names, although in every other aspect the Mongol people are referred to as Mongols.

In Hungarian, the invasion of Hungary is specifically called Tatárjárás, which means "Tartar plague". (See the detailed, and well referenced Hungarian Wikipedia article: [1].) I agree that this usage of words should be clarified in the article, because it is misleading as it is now, but is no way POV.

Also, I wouldn't consider the battle of Muhi as one of the greatest victories of all time, particularly because the Mongol army was far superior in numbers. Light cavalry archers (the Hungarians, to be specific) defeated numerically superior(!) armoured western armies several times approx. 300 years before, so the Mongol victory at Mohi is anything but unprecedented, and wasn't against the odds. It's also shouldn't be even compared to the battle of Cannae as the winner Carthaginian army was also far much smaller than the Roman. Pannonius (talk) 08:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I support the ideea that the article is POV. The Tartar-Mongol confusion is indeed very old in European history and it is true that Hungarian, Romanian and other sources continue to use Tartars and Mongols interchangeably when reffering to the Middle Ages. This is much less the case with English language sources, a simple search with Google Scholar should prove my point. Most English language sources and almost all native-English speaking historians use Mongol invariably. The Hungarian term for the invasion is therefore competely irrelevent to the English language article here.

Moreover, the article actually commends the way in which the Hungarians set their camp and further stresses this aspect by stating that it is unlikely that the Mongols wanted to cross the river and attack a fortified camp. Actually the disposition of the Hungarian camp was catastrophical and led Batu to compare the Hungarians to "cattle pent up in narrow stable" (See Turnbull, The Mongols, page 34). Subutai's success was partly due to a cramped Hungarian encampment, easy to incircle, and with tent ropes slowing troop movement. Furthermore, the article ignores to mention that if the Hungarians remained long ignorent of the Mongol camp being so close to their own it's because the latter was concealed with vegetation.

Concerning previous edits on this talk page I feel the need to stress that Mongols were not just horse archers, they had shock cavalrymen wearing heavy scale (waterproofed with pitch) and riding armoured horses, wielding hooked spears, expert in fighting other cavalry. They were also good engineers which greatly contributed to their victory at Mohi. All in all the battle was certainly not unprecendented and if it was won it's precisely because the Mongols were a well organised, complete and highly copetent millitary force and not just a goup of nomadic horse-archers. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 08:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)