Talk:Battle of Legnica

message: 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)
thread_title:  Older discussion 

message: The About.com link is not a valid source, as it is based on an outdated version of this Wikipedia article (see the bottom of the article).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)
thread_title:  Explanation of reversion 

message: 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)
thread_title: Kadan

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  In a similar discussion, somebody proposed obliterated instead of decimated -- Zz 15:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Decimated"? 

message: I found this site:
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)
thread_title: About the controversy

message: 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. 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)
thread_title:  Teutonic Knights 

message: 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)
thread_title:  The structure and style 

message: I came across the article and was suprised to see it called Legnica and not Liegnitz.  I've never in my life heard it called by the polish name, in my experience, this battle (and the one of the same name from the 18th century) is always referred to as liegnitz.  (or leignitz)  Just thought it was rather odd considering this is an english site.Fritigern (talk) 22:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming of the article 

message: has repeatedly added 50,000 Bohemians as part of the Christian army in the infobox. I object to this inclusion, as the Bohemians were at least a day's ride away and did not participate in the battle. This information is already mentioned in the text of the article; since the Bohemians were not involved in the actual battle, they should not be mentioned in the infobox. 80.244.92.183 has stated that 'John Man "Genghis khan", chapter 14, page 207' has relevant information; would (s)he mind posting this information? Olessi (talk) 23:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bohemians 

message: Copied from User talk:203.91.114.3
Battle of Legnica‎
I have reverted your unhelpful edits on Battle of Legnica. The data you changed had inline citations saying where it came from. It is very important that to have data that can be verified from sources - and that the sources are referenced in inline citations (footnotes). Changing the data without updating the citations is extremely unhelpful.
I have noted that you seem to be in the habit of making unexplained changes to numerical data in articles. If you want to improve articles please provide inline citations for your data; otherwise people are likely to revert them.--Toddy1 (talk) 05:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits by 203.91.114.3

message: ... they arrived at the suburbs of vienna austria raping and pillaging ... so it's pretty obvious to me that they had full intentions to continue on west . Wernerger7 (talk) 17:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:   The mongols advanced into vienna austria so poland is not the farthest west ... 

message: " Vettern von Wahlstatt [Bearbeiten]
Vettern von Wahlstatt nannten sich später sechs schlesische Adelsfamilien, von denen jeweils nur ein männliches Familienmitglied die Schlacht überlebt haben soll – die Familien Rothkirch, Strachwitz, Nostitz, Seydlitz, Prittwitz und Zedlitz. Einem Mythos zufolge verlor die Familie Rothkirch alle männlichen Familienangehörigen in der Schlacht. Einzig ein erst nach der Schlacht geborener männlicher Nachkomme existierte. Für diesen übernahm der Bund der überlebenden Kämpfer die Vormundschaft. Die heute lebenden Mitglieder dieser sechs Familien veranstalten regelmäßig Treffen im Gedenken an den Tag der Schlacht." German article
someone able to translate that plx?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.50.49.215 (talk) 07:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Vettern von Wahlstatt

message: Who exactly believed that Mongol losses were minimal? Considering that the Mongol vanguard was forced to retreat in heavy face-to-face combat against heavily armoured knights in the first phase of the battle, it seems it must have suffered serious losses.
The information on Mongol losses is unsourced. And I'm not saying that overall Mongol losses were substantial, but considering the vanguard must have suffered at least considerable losses in the first phase of the battle, overall Mongol losses couldn't be minimal.
Peter558 (talk) 09:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Mongol losses - "believed to be minimal"?

message: Agree with milhist, the citations are deeply insufficient. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 19:39, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: B-class review: failed

message: Could we find a better source than the article by Erik Hildinger from the Military History Magazine? It repeats some disproved myths (for example with regard to the numbers involved, presence of Poppo etc.) and adds a few of its own ("Piastow" vs. Piast, or the idea that this the day is celebrated in Poland - that one is pure, and particularly silly, invention). The Hildinger article is a lot like History Channel programs - pop-history with a bunch of non-serious sensationalism mixed in. Need something better.Volunteer Marek 20:12, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  The text by Kohn looks also quite suspicious. In the cited passage the author claims the presence of about 30.000 Teutonic Knights at Legnica. Even if this was the total size of the European army, it would still look largely exaggerated. I would also like to know the names of some of the German cities that fell like dominoes into the Mongols' hands. A quick google search didn't give me much information in this respect (even if the Mongols may have reached Austria). In any case, the language of the book indicates that this is a popular or even sensationalist text that is not overly concerned with historical accuracy. 92.230.56.119 (talk) 21:55, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Seconded. The reference, and statements in support of which it is cited, should be removed. --95.89.50.102 (talk) 14:46, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Better source 

message: Actually this did not appear to be the case, the Mongols were repelled by the city of Wroclaw / Breslau and were also defeated by the Bohemians shortly after the battle of Liegnicz.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.1.191.34 (talk) 14:38, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Easily captured German and Polish Cities? 

message: The conclusion section of the article is weired, as it sounds like the "Battle of Wahlstatt" happened after Mohi and is a different event from Liegnitz - practically it actually repeats the core events as if they happened again. I think it needs a major overhaul. ASchudak (talk) 10:37, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conclusion section 

message: http://www.arsbellica.it/pagine/medievale/Liegnitz/liegnitz_eng.html
all of the sources indicates mongol is slightly outnumbered in the battle of legnica. PLease change it, i dont feel comfortable downplaying a battle that is very significant in history  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.85.230.82 (talk) 17:25, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The only one "butthurt" here is you, nutjob. Relax.HernánCortés1518 (talk) 20:22, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mongols is outnumbered in the battle of legnica 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Battle of Legnica. 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/20070207082630/http://www.allempires.com:80/article/index.php?q=battle_liegnitz to http://www.allempires.com/article/index.php?q=battle_liegnitz
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:18, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There is a long line of blatantly incorrect European historiography with the mongol conquests that we need to be vigilant against (i,e Frank McLynn, Genghis Khan (2015). Many European chroniclers tried to downplay defeats to the Mongols, and it is all too easy for us westerners to take their accounts at face value and lessen the impact of the Mongolian defeats. For example Polish chronicler Jan Dluoscz estimated the Mongolian army, after it had mysteriously taken such horrible losses in earlier victories that it had to retreat for reinforcements, was many times the size of the Polish army at Liegnitz. He describes Liegnitz as a nearly won battle for the Poles (that somehow turned into a massacre) where the Mongols effectively got lucky in by yelling out 'Run, Run' in Polish. These accounts are, while valuable, inherently untrustworthy without critical appraisal.
The European rulers themselves also issued propaganda of nonexistent victories, such as the supposed Bohemian victory over what could have been no more than a small scouting force shortly after Liegnitz. This of course is not unusual for the time period and for armies facing the Mongols: the Jin generals also lied about victories over the Mongols to Emperor Aizong in the 1230s, right before their Empire was destroyed.
None of the Sino/Persian sources on the Mongols give any indication that Mongol losses at Legnica (in contrast to Mohi, where they were higher than normal) were any different than the normal very small losses Mongols suffered in victories. In aggregate across their campaigns, the Mongols must have taken extremely few losses in battle because otherwise they could have never completed their conquests given their tiny starting numbers. At Mohi there was a reason for the extra losses (Batu aggressively trying to force the bridge in the face of crossbowmen). At Liegnitz, the Mongols created a gap between the knights and the infantry by use of a partial feigned retreat, and separated them with smoke bombs. The isolated knights were then surrounded and killed. Where could these supposed heavy casualties have come from then? Crossbowmen aren't going to do well against horse-archers in the open, and even if the initial knight charge may have connected into a Mongol unit, we must keep in mind Philip Sabin's research that the vast majority of casualties in pre-modern combat came from the rout, not the melee.
73.247.69.66 (talk) 18:55, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Be Careful of Using Biased European sources 

message: Clearly the Europeans have downplay a very significant battle. The facts doesn’t show the Mongols are in a numerical disadvantage, a very misleading article that is biased to make the Templars and European medieval army look good  01racman (talk) 22:13, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  The article is completely rubbish and not historically accurate? 

message: The Tartar Relation is not by Giovanni da Pian del Carpine. It is by C. de Bridia. Giovanni wrote the Ystoria Mongalorum. I'm not sure what this citation is citing. Srnec (talk) 01:14, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Tartar Relation'', Giovanni da Pian del Carpine, ~1248. Page 80. 

message: It is worth clarifying how many Templars took part in the battle, how many ordinary Templar soldiers also fought. If we could add to the article about the territories of origin of these Templar knights, from which commanderies they came, considering that they mostly were from England, Aragon, Burgundy and France.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:5991:2D00:7C24:9C2C:3A0F:B27C (talk) 16:55, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Participation of the Knights Templar 

message: Why are battle of Legnica is also know as battle of Liegnitz? Is there no doubts that neither Teutonic Order nor some German military participated in battle? Bekbakbek (talk) 00:30, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is there accurate information about Teutonic Order? 

message: The article is using a confusing opposition of terms 'Polish' and 'Silesian', as if Silesia were not Polish at the time of the battle. Silesia was a part of the core Polish territories, and after the disruption of the Kingdom of Poland into semi-independent duchies remained the key actor among the Polish duchies. Duke Henry the Pious was a potential candidate for becoming the king of unified Poland. The process of increased colonization of Silesia by German settlers began only after the ravaging of the Duchy by Mongols.The colonization and later political actions by neighbouring powers led to breaking the bonds with Poland and the gradual germanization of the region, fullfilled only in the XVIII century by Prussia. 77.16.217.40 (talk) 11:55, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terminology: Silesian and Polish