Talk:Battle of Lechfeld

message: I changed "Holy Roman Empire" to "East Francia", as the HRE did not exist in that form yet. Otto was crowned Emperor in 962, a decade after this battle. At the time of the battle, the region that became the HRE was known as the Kingdom of East Francia or the Kingdom of the Germans.
-Alex, 74.133.188.197 03:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Combatants 

message: What sources is this article using for the numbers and the casulties? For example The Seventy Great Battles of All Time (edited by Jeremy Black) gives the Hungarian strength at circa 25 000. --88.114.235.214 18:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: Sorry, but I had to delete this BS!
: Pretty much all of that was debunked long ago. The rest is nationalistic wishful thinking.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.113.121.15 (talk) 02:15, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  There are 2 versions to this Battle of Lechfeld 

message: I removed the following URL from the sources on the main page - it points to a password-protected section about Widukind's account
Widukind
(Florian Marquardt)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.147.59.12 (talk) 09:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  removed URL in sources 

message: I am skeptical about this line:
"The Magyars rode faster horses than the more heavily encumbered German knights and had a speed advantage in a normal situation."
My understanding is that while the Magyars had greater strategic mobility due to their extra horses and self-sufficiency, and greater long term endurance, the European warhorses were bred for strength and speed, while the steppe ponies were not.  In a short sprint or charge the knights are faster I think. AThousandYoung (talk) 22:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The steppe type warfare used special horses, called "hucul" which looked ponies, as the legs are relatively shorter, but were not ponies at all, and the horses were able to move more flexible than the heavy armored ones. The war is not always about sprints. Also, the Hungarian army was strong on shooting during running full speed, swinging the arrow backwards. Try to do it, it is extremely difficult... Abdulka (talk) 12:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

text: The Magyars used Akhal-Teke horses. Fakirbakir (talk) 18:41, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Horses

message: Is there any source for the "von Hoehne"-family as participants of this battle?
I never heard of anything like this and find it rather strange (maybe a spinn-off of some dubious family history?). 
You won't find anything about this on the German Wikipedia pages either under 'Lechfeld' or under 'Saxon(tribe)'.
Therefore I would recommend to delete this passage.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.128.10.65 (talk) 13:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  German "Von's" in the 10th century? 

message: "Medieval numbers should be taken with a pinch of salt. The 8,000 German and Czech knights cited by Beeler are close to the maximum that could be supplied by 10th century logistics in medieval Central Europe. It is possible that the Magyars and Otto's army were of a similar size. The 50,000 given by the chroniclers is unlikely. Otto was a shrewd general and it would have been reckless for him to take on an army five times larger than his own. The 35,000 Magyar dead is also unlikely. The Magyars rode faster horses than the more heavily encumbered German knights and had a speed advantage in a normal situation. When large numbers of Magyars were killed, it was likely because they were caught between Conrad and the Swabians, trapped by the steep river bank or surprised by the local militias. The casualties stated for both sides may be too large by a factor of ten." <---- Warning posted April 2009 to source these comments, no action taken as of March 2011
A good, scholarly paragraph - properly footnoted with reliable sources not rooted in nationalism or pure speculation - about the veracity of Medieval sources has a place in the article, if someone will do the work. HammerFilmFan (talk) 22:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  removed OR - the point of this commentary is well-taken, however - needs sourcing 

message: I edited this article big time. Maybe it should be regraded. This article is now very well cited.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveMooreSmith3 (talk • contribs) 21:31, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edited article big time 

message: In the section "Background" (c.f. "Gerhard writes that the Hungarian forces advanced to the Iller River and placed Augsburg under siege. At this time, Augsburg did not quite touch the left bank of the river, upon which it was situated."), the article is written in a manner that suggests Augsburg lies upon the River Iller, which is in fact more than 20 miles away from the city.  The river in the second sentence should be the Lech.  This misleading wording may come from misreading the primary source: Though I haven't checked Gerhard's Vita Sancti Uodalrici, it seems possible that it says something along the lies of "the Hungarians advanced as far as the River Iller".  I would try to fix this myself... but I've found it insulting when bots and overzealous editors have deleted my talk page edits pointing out factual errors based upon me not knowing "proper procedure".  Good job alienating those who want to help, wikipedia!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.18.39.217 (talk) 00:35, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  The River Iller vs. the River Lech

message: Hi, I am notifying the editors with =>9.5% of the edits for or who have added more than 1200 bytes to this article.
I recently worked to improve the citation templates on this article, including restoring some of the full citations that must have been removed by an editor who apparently knew nothing about shortened footnotes.
Currently, 25 out of the 36 footnotes use the  or  templates. I would like to convert the remaining 11 to shortened footnotes.
As an example of how this would look, I invite you to see the Beowulf and Middle-earth & Battle of Drepana featured articles that were on the main page on 2022-02-26 & 2022-02-26, respectively.
Although WP:CITEVAR, under the Generally considered helpful section, suggests that
, CITVAR also states up front that:
I am therefore here to ask for your consent to this change, & in an effort to avoid any WTF reactions. Peaceray (talk) 23:08, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I have not seen any objections, so I will proceed as I am able. Peaceray (talk) 22:48, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not see any issue(s) with changing the remaining references to the same shortened version. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:00, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed conversion of all footnotes to shortened footnotes