Talk:Battle of Mohi

message: 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
Can we seriously stop with all these nationalists and their bias, they seem to riddle nearly all articles pertaining to the Mongol conquests.
And yes, the Mongol withdrawal is due to the death of Ogodei confirmed by a literal contemporary primary source who personally met Subutai, Batu and Guyuk, Rashid Al-Din's account on the other hand  is a secondary source written nearly fifty years after the facts, this is not a theory and it can't be obsolete unless there is a more authoritative contemporary source which I don't think exists. 
1246 was the date of the crowning, Batu didn't return for the election/crowning event itself but for the election process which took several years ending in 1246.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Contolonan (talk • contribs) 20:35, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Factual errors 

message: 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) 
Besides that, there are great swaths of text without citation.  Borders on plagio'. HammerFilmFan (talk) 14:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need more references 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations 
;What should I do?
	Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 07:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Hungary 1241.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: A word-for-word insertion of a 2003 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica has been entered into this article. An identical passage has been added into the Battle of Liegnitz article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Legnica). Exactly what purpose it serves here is uncertain. It is also misleading, since the Hungarian army was anything but a "traditional european-style" army - the majority of the cavalry were likely the so-called "castle warriors", lightly armed melee cavalry drawn from the royal system of small wooden castles.  It was only after the mongol invasion that king Bela reformed the hungarian royal army, adding more heavy cavalry elements. Any reading of Kosztolnyik, Z. J. (1996). Hungary in the Thirteenth Century. East European Monographs; No. CDXXXIX. New York: Columbia University Press or Engel, Pal et.al (2005) The realm of St.Stephen. Ib.Tauris. - see the page reference to Kosztolnyik provided lower in this article.
I will delete the insertion as irrellevant.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.55.188 (talk) 05:46, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Ineffectiveness of European style warfare against Mongols" 

message: Okay, I know that my edit was kind of sort of vandalism. But consider the facts. Someone had written that a certain event occurred on March 15 – year unstated. So, theoretically, you were reading the article and a year is identified in a previous section, and you are supposed to know that the reference is to that same year, and not just the year, but March 15, not March 14, not March 16, but March 15. So I added the time. Can anyone find a source to dispute my time of day? Like hello? Did someone Google that (the March 15 date) and read it in the Mongolian Times archive? And which calendar? The one we use today in the West? I do not think that even existed in the 1200s. Am I mistaken?
In any event, I know if I would've brought it up on the talk page the Owner of the article would not even have considered an edit to do away with the logical fallacy of false precision. So I'm not going to get into an edit war. I just hoped that bring it to the attention of someone in a sarcastic way, but still in good faith, would be more convincing.
By the way, can someone tell me how to respond directly to the person who makes a revert and leaves me a message about it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Da5id403 (talk • contribs) 19:22, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: Somebody wrote that a battle that took place 1000 years ago began at "22:00" without further specifying whether this is Greenwich mean time, Pacific standard Time, Mongol standard Time, etc. In point of fact, there is no citation and there can be no citation because nobody can know at what hour something happened before people had universally recognized time zones, clocks, or even calendars. It is ridiculous and petty to revert my deletion of some contributors/owner's belief that something took place at a specific time of the day hundreds of years ago. It just makes Wikipedia look stupid.Da5id403 (talk) 21:57, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, I fully agree with you: stating that the battle started at 22:00 looks strange especially without any sources. But it seems that you were the one who (re)introduced it , that's why I have deleted it . The situation is especially strange, since you reintroduced this "22:00" claim again by undoing my edit  with a comment "removing unsourced content". Are you sure that you know how Wikipedia works (technically)? Cheers, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 13:36, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I forgot my original complaint was the date and I added the time. <:-| I think I am permanently cured of sarcastic vandalism to make a point.Da5id403 (talk) 23:42, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  22:00 Mongol Standard Time? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Battle of Mohi. 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/20151021020850/http://www.allempires.com/article/index.php?q=invasion_mongol_europe to http://www.allempires.com/article/index.php?q=invasion_mongol_europe
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) 19:04, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified