No, wikipedia is not reliable if you don't check your sources, and the sources given on the article "battle of Mohi" are crap. In the section "casualties and sources" there is written on the Mongol side "few thousand killed", while we know that Mongol losses are actually unknown. There is no contemporary source for that. And now check the source for this claim below in the article "Liptai, Ervin (1985), Military History of Hungary". That guy is Hungarian and made this up. Enough said.
Sorry,but after so many replies you did,I don't buy your excuse you "time waisting". Just be a man and admit you don't know much about this, since you didn't give one single fact to me. After all,your knowledge is based on Wiki articles, which you have read in 5 minutes to look up some doubtful informations. And even your beloved Wikipedia says, your Hungarian historians might exaggerate the Mongol losses a bit, if you look closer.
@Communist1986 I just dont feel like replying to a page worth of comments.
take it or leave it. and no, I'm reading a book on the crusades. but yes, I've only read up the mongol encounters with Europe on wiki since it's quic and reliable. yes, wiki is most of the time reliable. most of the time. and, we can say the same about mongols exagerating victories, ect. ect. but you have to remember, not all of Europe fought the same way,.
Think what you want about Mohi, but the facts are pretty much there. Mongols continued through Europe after Mohi, they didn't retreat. That's the most logical reason that the casualties were pretty normal, and not so huge the Hungarians want to make us believe.
@ninja909 I suppose you mean King Bela? Because the Hungarian army was non-existant at that time. Yeah the king escaped, although I fail to see that has something to do with casualties of the Mongols.
The number given in the article is obviously an overestimation to make the hungarians look better. A few thousand soldiers killed would be too much for the Mongols. I suppose the historian feels better, if he can imagine strong Hungarians beating the shit out of the Mongols. That's kinda sad.
@Communist1986 they failed to go pursue the remaining forces.
their original plan was. if I must copy and show you I will.
and do you realize how bias and stupid you sound right now? "what? a thousand killed? the mongols couldn't possibly lose over a couple thousand men! that must be false cause the mongols are too skilled!".
honestly, I thought you were a man of logic, not opinion. guess I was wrong?
@ninja909 I don't think I sound stupid or biased. So far, I have made my point very clear to you. A few thousands Mongoled killed at Mohi? This is just laughable, as the Mongols continued to devastate hungary and pursuit Bela. They even made plans to go further into Europe. With this knowledge in mind, what do you expect me to say? I obviously won't join the Hungarians to chant about the super hungarian soldiers, who saved Europe.
@ninja909 That said, the numbers are made up by this historian, I don't see where I lack logic seriously now. If you like to discuss Mongol defeats, I am here to do so, but Mohi wasn't certainly a big problem for them. I think there is nothing more to say about this topic.
To come to an end: you are a fucking moron, who wastes my time with his nonsense. Try to make proper arguments, maybe you should practise with 10 years old to get a sense of achievement, and then come back and try me again. Post sources or shut the fuck up, because the only one here who takes advantage from this one sided argument are you, I am not the one who is learning here.
@lifes40123 your thinking of the battle of legnica not mohi. europians faught verry well at mohi. infact, mohi was actualy 2 battles. the mongols were travling across the bridge to attack at night and the europians ambushed them killing every damn mongol there was. the next day the mongols came outnumbering the europians and won but lost manny manny soldiers. mohi was a bare victory and the mongols lost manny lives.
@ninja909 my point is the mongols only lost 10 percent of their army thoughout the entire european campaign... yes the mongols outnumbered the europeans and that is a lie
@lifes40123 the mongols onely managed to take hungary and poland. that isnt much. what is a lie? are you saying that something i said is a lie cause i can back it up. the mongols couldntv invaded all of europe and i wish that khan didnt die cause they wouldv had a hard downfall. horse archers dont siege catsles. they wouldv failed once they made it to germany, italy, ect. they already nearly lost in hungary.
@lifes40123 rockets? go figure. either way, that doesn't mean the'd win. at the battle of rhodes AND the siege of malta, the turks had cannons "equaly effective" and other devices to break down the catsles. the turks also had thousands of more soldiers. and who won? the knights hospitaler won against the turks. turks are also verry similar to mongols so the mongols probably wouldnt suceed either if the turks didnt.
@ninja909 lol wtf are u a wannabe nerd? winning depends on terrain, technology, the generals ability to change their mind u noob.. malta was an fortess on an island and europeans were much more smarter during the siege of malta u fag and the mongols could have conquered europe if ogedei khan didnt die
@lifes40123 name calling now are you? arent you so mature. anyways, the mongols onely realy suceeded at the battle of legnica. the battle of mohi wasnt the great mongol victory as it is described. it was 2 battles. and the first battle the mongols lost big time. mongols tried crossing the bridge to attack at night and got their asses kicked. every mongol died there. the next day the mongols attacked once more. the battle was so intense that at one point the mongols almost called off retreat.
@lifes40123 part 2: so yes. my point of all that? the europians were getting smarter by each battle they earuopians were learning the mongols tactics and in time they would know how to fight against them. the tactics would onely work for so long. yes winning has alot of factors, but you said the mongols would win because of "fire works" not because of terrain and generals. noob? seriously? this isnt world of warcraft. the europians were smarter then yes. the hospitallers were the best knights.
@RalphyGreene not realy. the mongols lost the first time they tried to invade mohi. the second time the mongols tried to invade mohi they lost the majority of their army. the khan lost 30 of his best body gaurds. and when king bela the coward retreated, the mongols planned to pursue him but they refused since they were so weak from the battle.
@ninja909 First of all I dont see how you can say they took a lot of casualties they dont know for sure and those body gaurds arent exactly soldiers either theyre bodygaurds its on wikipedia if you read further. Also almost the entire hungarian/european allied army was slaughtered at mohi. You dont seem to understand when the mongols crossed the river with catapult/bomb support the other troops were flanking behind which caused the europeans to panic loosing rank.
@RalphyGreene body gaurds are superior to soldiers. if soldiers were superior, then it would be the soldiers duty to protect the khans grandson. and yes the mongols DID win, but it wasnt some huge victory. it was a bare victory. and that was onely the second battle. the europeans won the first battle over the mongols. and if the mongols made it further into europe they would soon regret it. they nearly lost at mohi, nvm against england with longbows, catsles, armored knights, cannons, ect. ect.
@ninja909 youre not going to look it up on wikipedia the mongol body gaurds were more ceramonial than for actual combat unlike their heavy lancers. Also when it says they took more casualties it just means to evey other battle in eastern europe where there were almost no casualties to the mongols.also you must be crazy english with cannons this is the 1200s, the only people who had cannons were the mamluks, and the mongols. also armored knights back than werent like the ones off king arthur
@RalphyGreene i didnt even know the mongol body gaurds had a wikipedia page.
what would be the point of ceramonial body gaurds on a battle field? of course europeans didnt have good equipment in 1240. but im talking about the future. after all the mongols tried to raid europe several times anyways. the turks for example were also horse archers. they owned on open fields. but the turks failed nearly everytime when trying to siege a knight hospitaller catsle.
@ninja909 They do if you read into it, it took 30 years for the mongols to get from their country to eastern europe taking over almost everything.
Youre telling if theyre in eastern europe and make it into western europe *hungary lost its whole army*, *also the byzantine fled from the mongols*. Youre telling me the europeans would have cannons and weapons from 1300s-1400s it would take no more than a year to get to western europe.
Also what turks you mean ottomons thats way later!!
@RalphyGreene ok let me explain to you like your a six year old. 1240 wasnt the ONELY period in europe of chivalry. lets say the mongols DID invade in the 1300-1400's. they would get destroyed. and yes, the ottomans. if you look at europes history of victories durring the 1200's its verry low. not just to mongols but to turks and muslims too. the 4th through 9th crusade were failurs. but europe started improving by the 1400's. turks faught just like mongols and lost to the knights hospitaller.
@ninja909 Wow you spell like a six year old. Also lets say the Mongols didn't invade in the 1300s, they invaded during the 1200s. No one is talking about the 1300s quit trying to change the subject you sound like some sort of dumbass that cant support anything he says. Also whats up with all that Teutonic Knight stuff you're probably not even Christian.
@ninja909 Oh I also forgot since were playing what ifs what if the mongols had mechs, or no what if they had laser cannons, oh no what if they had space ships!?!?! lol
lol? ok well you go play with your laser cannons and space ships.
to be honest, no one knows if the mongols would have conquered europe. the mongols won at poland easy. the mongols struggled at hungary. the mongols might have had more struggles. perhaps your right and the mongols could have taken all of europe. but im not talking about the 1200's since you aparently havnt gotten that through your thick skull yet. im talking about the 1400's when europe was at a golden age.
correct me if i'm wrong, but the topic was EUROPE VS MONGOLIA! i dont care what the hell period it was.
you on the other hand onely want to talk about that period on that battle on that exact day on that exact time when the wind blew that way and the sun was just above that cloud ect. ect. ect.. but yes, the mongols won at mohi but they also lost at mohi. there were 2 battles, not one. the first battle of mohi was a mongol loss. the scores are tied. equal. and i hate naruto
@RalphyGreene technicly it was 2 battles. call it one battle if it keeps your self esteem or whatever but the battle of mohi was seperated into 2 battles. the mongols invaded once at night, and again the next day. the mongols lost the battle at night. the mongols won the battle the next day. it wasnt all one battle.
@ninja909 Ok thats like saying since since some battles in ww2 were several days its individual battles its all called the battle of mohi when you look it up online theres no battle of mohi 1 or battle of mohi 2 its battle of mohi and it was almost 2 days. You must be like 15 or something
wow you cant just settle for an even score and end the argument. you have to continue to bitch and whine about how the mongols won every battle. what happened that night was a prelude to the battle of mohi. just cause it took place in the same location doesnt mean it was the same battle. cause as far as im concerened, the mongols lost that first battle. they invaded, and every mongol either was killed or retreated. if you dont call that a victory then your just some stuck up twat
@ninja909 Some deluded comments here, evidences of western arrogance. Mongols just steamrolled through Europe, they had their most casualties at Mohi but if you consider that hungary had the best cavalry in Europe at this time it puts things into perspective. Mongols still beat them without losing too much troops. The mongol army was professional and disciplined (basically everything european armies werent)and would have pissed all of european armies even in the 1300s, don't fool yourself.
@Communist1986 you call me arrogant, then you go on to talk about pissing all over Europe. of course your username is communist, that doesn't surprise me a bit.
European armies weren't preofessional? or disiplined!? lol!!! I gues you never heard about the Roman Empire? or Alexander the Great? for one, the mongols almost retreated at mohi, and lost 30 of the khans best gaurds, so it wasn't a decisive victory at all. for two, the mongols aren't far off from huns, who lost to romans
@ninja909 Wow, you know nothing I fear. This is Part 1 have a good read! Yes, they literally pissed all over Europe, I didn't make this up just look on the battle results. And don't lol so much, it just shows that you didn't understand that I was referring to the middle ages and not to the Ancient times, when Romans and Macedonians dominated. Yes European armies lacked discipline and team work, face it! They fought as individuals not like the Mongols, Romans, or Greeks as units.
@ninja909 Let me continue. Your next clam is that the Mongols lost many troops, which is also false. Infact Batu Khan crossed the bridge and took a minority of the main Mongol force with him, who had to stand, with their back to the sajo river, against the full force of the Hungarians. Batu were bound to have heavy casualties, but only Batu!! while Subutai commanded the main Mongol force who surrounded the Hungarians. Then it was piss easy as the Hungarians were shattered and fled.
@ninja909 The last part. So Subutai arrived, defeated the Hungarians and had only minor losses, which means that the Mongol main army had actually only a few losses.
Your last claim is that the Mongols are somewhat similar to the huns is absolut bullcrap as the huns were just a horde, who lacked organization and discipline, and by the time the Romans defeated them the backbone of their army was built up of Germanic tribes, who didn't use horse archer tactics like the mongols. owned.
owned? seriously? what are you some kid who sees debating as a form of "owning" other people? the huns were horse archers. and yeah they were a horde, but so was the mongols. "golden horde". , this horde was defeated by Roman and Germans together. tactics were used in the medieval period. not at legnica, no, but they were used allot amongst the English. oh and if you payed attention, I wouldn't have to repeat myself. the mongols almost retreated at mohi.
@ninja909 Is that your answer, noob? I think I was right about you. I'm no kid I am probably elder than you, but I dislike goddamn idiots who don't shut the fuck up about something they don't know much about, and you are one of them as I can judge by your few comments on here which basically lack basic knowledge.
Ok once again only for you the huns and the mongols are not cmparable, that's like compairing the Germans with the Romans because both relied on infantry.
@ninja909 As I said before the huns were an unorganized bunch without proper military training, drill and professional staff. The Mongols on the other hand were like a modern army.They were disciplined, had a professional staff, thus able to take actions independent from the General, they had a flag-signal system, they used psychological warfare (puppets on horses to make them numerically superior than they actually were and they used bombs and chinese rocket launchers.
@ninja909 Back to the huns: when they arrived 375 AC they were a bunch of horse archers, but in 451, when they had the battle against the Romans, they were basically an infantry army in the ANCIENT times not in the middle ages you noob. That was because they integrated all those Germanic tribes in their army.
If you would read a book instead of reading wiki articles in 5 minutes I wouldn't embarass you that much.
@ninja909 And stop claiming the mongols almost retreated at Mohi.That's just hungarian nationalist bullshit, Polands and Germans say the same about legnica and Russians say they saved Europe because they inflicted so many casualties on the Mongols at the kalka river. Infact they all got raped and the Mongols won those battles with relative ease. So, where's your source that the whole Mongol army wanted to retreat? And try something better than wikipedia, a book maybe if you what that is.
you're basically just trying to cover your losses. yes, the mongols almost retreated at mohi. I've read up the information, and it's more reliable than your bullshit.
the mongols already had started to retreat before the khans grandsom stopped them.
the mongols only decisive victory was at legnica. that's ONE battle, moron.
and by the way, no ones going to go around making stuff up on wiki just to support an argument like this.
@ninja909 If you didn't notice that I have embarrased you, you must be more stupid than I thought, think about it, because other people actually READ your comments.In other comments you claimed, Mohi was actually 2 battles, which is the most stupid thing I have read on youtube, and this has to mean something. I have explained to you what happened in the battle and you responded nothing valueable about it. You still weren't able to bring up a source to back your claims, which is pathetic.
@Communist1986 there's no way I'm responding to all of that.
I don't have that kind of time. anyways, yes, another battle took place before the main event of mohi, it took place on the bridge the previous day. battle, skirmish, feud, call it whatever you want, it was a devistating mongol loss at that. my gosh, you liberal morons are such ignorant pricks, you bitch and whine and do anything to cover up the smallest defeat you could possibly face. grow up and get used to it.
@ninja909 You don't respond, because you know nothing, not because you don't have enough time. By the way, my comments to you took me 5-6 minutes. So you don't have 5-6 minutes? Haha ok, bad excuse. And then you should know the difference between a battle and an encounter. That little encounter on the bridge was part of the battle and it wasn't a devastating mongol loss due to the small size of the units. You must be some kind of a masochist returning to this place to get raped by me.
@Communist1986 I simply dont feel like wasting time. deal with it.
anyways, it was a little more than an "enounter". a skirmish at least.
and the mongols were superior to the polish. the polish. the hungarians didn't do that bad, and it's no doubt other places in Europe such as England would have done much better.
@ninja909 Anyway there isn't more to say, if you (or anyone else) is interested in a book about the Mongol Invasion of Europe I recommend the book "The Devil's Horsemen: The Mongol Invasion of Europe" from James Chambers. It has plenty of informations about the battles in that time.
@ninja909 I never said the Mongols were unbeatable. They had their defeats as well. They were just in the same manner superior to their enemies, particularly in Europe, as I am superior to you in my history knowledge. Funny that such a wannabe historian like you calls me ignorant because, as it stands now, you're the epitome of ignorance. You better don't talk shit about history and expect people to swallow it, there is always someone like me here and owns you for that. Or be prepared next time.
@ninja909 I have never read the Mongols wanted to retreat at Mohi. Could you give me the source? Although I am sure you aren't able to give me one, because you're too stupid to read a book. And why you say Mohi wasn't decisive? That's funny because after Mohi there wasn't anything that could have stopped the Mongols from raping Hungary, and that's why they did, they totally devestated the country.
@ninja909 Answer this question: If the Mongols suffered so many casualties at Mohi, why didn't they immediately retreat? Instead they raped Hungary and pursuit King Bela and Mongol spies were already seen in Vienna . Later, with the dead of the great Khan they had to retreat, Batu couldn't be sure about the loyalty of his army. Infact if one of those battles was decisive it was Mohi not Legnica, because the Poland had still some forces left.
@ninja909 to the wikipedia argument: I understand why you said this, because wikipedia is basically your only source, because your are so uneducated, but it doesn't matter to me, it's not a good source, when it comes to history. Yes there are some nationalists that try to change history, by making their own country look stronger than they actually were. In this case they claim Mohi was a Phyrric victory for the Mongols, ignoring the fact, that the Hungarians acted very stupid in the battle.
@ninja909 For example: Hungarians build a camp at Mohi, which was too tight, for this large army, Mongols flooded the sky with arrows and hit very often, because there was no room for the Hungarians to maneuver, which was a main reason, why the Mongols slaughtered them so easily. Those Hungarian nationalists ignore these facts, which are confirmed by other historians, because it doesn't sound good, does it? They don't have the balls to admit they fucked up big time and acted retarded.
@womblewandering i've heard it both ways, but the general consensus was that they simply didn't want to pursue king whatsit, for fear of more casualties or whatever
No, wikipedia is not reliable if you don't check your sources, and the sources given on the article "battle of Mohi" are crap. In the section "casualties and sources" there is written on the Mongol side "few thousand killed", while we know that Mongol losses are actually unknown. There is no contemporary source for that. And now check the source for this claim below in the article "Liptai, Ervin (1985), Military History of Hungary". That guy is Hungarian and made this up. Enough said.
Communist1986 1 month ago
Sorry,but after so many replies you did,I don't buy your excuse you "time waisting". Just be a man and admit you don't know much about this, since you didn't give one single fact to me. After all,your knowledge is based on Wiki articles, which you have read in 5 minutes to look up some doubtful informations. And even your beloved Wikipedia says, your Hungarian historians might exaggerate the Mongol losses a bit, if you look closer.
Communist1986 1 month ago
@Communist1986 I just dont feel like replying to a page worth of comments.
take it or leave it. and no, I'm reading a book on the crusades. but yes, I've only read up the mongol encounters with Europe on wiki since it's quic and reliable. yes, wiki is most of the time reliable. most of the time. and, we can say the same about mongols exagerating victories, ect. ect. but you have to remember, not all of Europe fought the same way,.
ninja909 1 month ago
Think what you want about Mohi, but the facts are pretty much there. Mongols continued through Europe after Mohi, they didn't retreat. That's the most logical reason that the casualties were pretty normal, and not so huge the Hungarians want to make us believe.
Communist1986 1 month ago
@Communist1986 the mongols failed to pursue the retreated hungarians like the originally planned actually, due to lack of casualties.
and, you could say the same for any mongol recorder of history.
the number is obviously an estimate. as are all numbers of those killed in battle.
ninja909 1 month ago
@ninja909 I suppose you mean King Bela? Because the Hungarian army was non-existant at that time. Yeah the king escaped, although I fail to see that has something to do with casualties of the Mongols.
The number given in the article is obviously an overestimation to make the hungarians look better. A few thousand soldiers killed would be too much for the Mongols. I suppose the historian feels better, if he can imagine strong Hungarians beating the shit out of the Mongols. That's kinda sad.
Communist1986 1 month ago
@Communist1986 they failed to go pursue the remaining forces.
their original plan was. if I must copy and show you I will.
and do you realize how bias and stupid you sound right now? "what? a thousand killed? the mongols couldn't possibly lose over a couple thousand men! that must be false cause the mongols are too skilled!".
honestly, I thought you were a man of logic, not opinion. guess I was wrong?
ninja909 1 month ago
@ninja909 I don't think I sound stupid or biased. So far, I have made my point very clear to you. A few thousands Mongoled killed at Mohi? This is just laughable, as the Mongols continued to devastate hungary and pursuit Bela. They even made plans to go further into Europe. With this knowledge in mind, what do you expect me to say? I obviously won't join the Hungarians to chant about the super hungarian soldiers, who saved Europe.
Communist1986 1 month ago
@ninja909 That said, the numbers are made up by this historian, I don't see where I lack logic seriously now. If you like to discuss Mongol defeats, I am here to do so, but Mohi wasn't certainly a big problem for them. I think there is nothing more to say about this topic.
Communist1986 1 month ago
To come to an end: you are a fucking moron, who wastes my time with his nonsense. Try to make proper arguments, maybe you should practise with 10 years old to get a sense of achievement, and then come back and try me again. Post sources or shut the fuck up, because the only one here who takes advantage from this one sided argument are you, I am not the one who is learning here.
Communist1986 1 month ago
mongols only lody like 8-10% of their army at the battle of mohi and europeans all got killed
lifes40123 1 year ago
@lifes40123 your thinking of the battle of legnica not mohi. europians faught verry well at mohi. infact, mohi was actualy 2 battles. the mongols were travling across the bridge to attack at night and the europians ambushed them killing every damn mongol there was. the next day the mongols came outnumbering the europians and won but lost manny manny soldiers. mohi was a bare victory and the mongols lost manny lives.
ninja909 1 year ago
@ninja909 my point is the mongols only lost 10 percent of their army thoughout the entire european campaign... yes the mongols outnumbered the europeans and that is a lie
lifes40123 1 year ago
@lifes40123 the mongols onely managed to take hungary and poland. that isnt much. what is a lie? are you saying that something i said is a lie cause i can back it up. the mongols couldntv invaded all of europe and i wish that khan didnt die cause they wouldv had a hard downfall. horse archers dont siege catsles. they wouldv failed once they made it to germany, italy, ect. they already nearly lost in hungary.
ninja909 1 year ago
@ninja909 the mongols had catapults and rockets to detroy walls and castles
lifes40123 1 year ago
@lifes40123 rockets? go figure. either way, that doesn't mean the'd win. at the battle of rhodes AND the siege of malta, the turks had cannons "equaly effective" and other devices to break down the catsles. the turks also had thousands of more soldiers. and who won? the knights hospitaler won against the turks. turks are also verry similar to mongols so the mongols probably wouldnt suceed either if the turks didnt.
ninja909 1 year ago
@ninja909 lol wtf are u a wannabe nerd? winning depends on terrain, technology, the generals ability to change their mind u noob.. malta was an fortess on an island and europeans were much more smarter during the siege of malta u fag and the mongols could have conquered europe if ogedei khan didnt die
lifes40123 1 year ago
@lifes40123 name calling now are you? arent you so mature. anyways, the mongols onely realy suceeded at the battle of legnica. the battle of mohi wasnt the great mongol victory as it is described. it was 2 battles. and the first battle the mongols lost big time. mongols tried crossing the bridge to attack at night and got their asses kicked. every mongol died there. the next day the mongols attacked once more. the battle was so intense that at one point the mongols almost called off retreat.
ninja909 1 year ago
@lifes40123 part 2: so yes. my point of all that? the europians were getting smarter by each battle they earuopians were learning the mongols tactics and in time they would know how to fight against them. the tactics would onely work for so long. yes winning has alot of factors, but you said the mongols would win because of "fire works" not because of terrain and generals. noob? seriously? this isnt world of warcraft. the europians were smarter then yes. the hospitallers were the best knights.
ninja909 1 year ago
@ninja909 Turks are not similar to mongols mongols arent muslims their bows are also a lot stronger and they are a lot more violent than turks.
RalphyGreene 9 months ago
@ninja909 Actually if you look at mohi the europeans took many many more casualties lol.
RalphyGreene 9 months ago
@RalphyGreene not realy. the mongols lost the first time they tried to invade mohi. the second time the mongols tried to invade mohi they lost the majority of their army. the khan lost 30 of his best body gaurds. and when king bela the coward retreated, the mongols planned to pursue him but they refused since they were so weak from the battle.
ninja909 9 months ago
@ninja909 First of all I dont see how you can say they took a lot of casualties they dont know for sure and those body gaurds arent exactly soldiers either theyre bodygaurds its on wikipedia if you read further. Also almost the entire hungarian/european allied army was slaughtered at mohi. You dont seem to understand when the mongols crossed the river with catapult/bomb support the other troops were flanking behind which caused the europeans to panic loosing rank.
RalphyGreene 9 months ago
@RalphyGreene body gaurds are superior to soldiers. if soldiers were superior, then it would be the soldiers duty to protect the khans grandson. and yes the mongols DID win, but it wasnt some huge victory. it was a bare victory. and that was onely the second battle. the europeans won the first battle over the mongols. and if the mongols made it further into europe they would soon regret it. they nearly lost at mohi, nvm against england with longbows, catsles, armored knights, cannons, ect. ect.
ninja909 9 months ago
@ninja909 youre not going to look it up on wikipedia the mongol body gaurds were more ceramonial than for actual combat unlike their heavy lancers. Also when it says they took more casualties it just means to evey other battle in eastern europe where there were almost no casualties to the mongols.also you must be crazy english with cannons this is the 1200s, the only people who had cannons were the mamluks, and the mongols. also armored knights back than werent like the ones off king arthur
RalphyGreene 9 months ago
@RalphyGreene i didnt even know the mongol body gaurds had a wikipedia page.
what would be the point of ceramonial body gaurds on a battle field? of course europeans didnt have good equipment in 1240. but im talking about the future. after all the mongols tried to raid europe several times anyways. the turks for example were also horse archers. they owned on open fields. but the turks failed nearly everytime when trying to siege a knight hospitaller catsle.
ninja909 9 months ago
@ninja909 They do if you read into it, it took 30 years for the mongols to get from their country to eastern europe taking over almost everything.
Youre telling if theyre in eastern europe and make it into western europe *hungary lost its whole army*, *also the byzantine fled from the mongols*. Youre telling me the europeans would have cannons and weapons from 1300s-1400s it would take no more than a year to get to western europe.
Also what turks you mean ottomons thats way later!!
RalphyGreene 9 months ago
@RalphyGreene ok let me explain to you like your a six year old. 1240 wasnt the ONELY period in europe of chivalry. lets say the mongols DID invade in the 1300-1400's. they would get destroyed. and yes, the ottomans. if you look at europes history of victories durring the 1200's its verry low. not just to mongols but to turks and muslims too. the 4th through 9th crusade were failurs. but europe started improving by the 1400's. turks faught just like mongols and lost to the knights hospitaller.
ninja909 9 months ago
@ninja909 Wow you spell like a six year old. Also lets say the Mongols didn't invade in the 1300s, they invaded during the 1200s. No one is talking about the 1300s quit trying to change the subject you sound like some sort of dumbass that cant support anything he says. Also whats up with all that Teutonic Knight stuff you're probably not even Christian.
RalphyGreene 9 months ago
@ninja909 Oh I also forgot since were playing what ifs what if the mongols had mechs, or no what if they had laser cannons, oh no what if they had space ships!?!?! lol
RalphyGreene 9 months ago
@RalphyGreene
lol? ok well you go play with your laser cannons and space ships.
to be honest, no one knows if the mongols would have conquered europe. the mongols won at poland easy. the mongols struggled at hungary. the mongols might have had more struggles. perhaps your right and the mongols could have taken all of europe. but im not talking about the 1200's since you aparently havnt gotten that through your thick skull yet. im talking about the 1400's when europe was at a golden age.
ninja909 9 months ago
@ninja909 NO ONE WAS TALKING ABOUT EUROPE IN THE 1400s! THIS IS BATTLE OF MOHI GO PLAY NARUTO NINJA SHIT STORM! lol!
RalphyGreene 9 months ago
@RalphyGreene
correct me if i'm wrong, but the topic was EUROPE VS MONGOLIA! i dont care what the hell period it was.
you on the other hand onely want to talk about that period on that battle on that exact day on that exact time when the wind blew that way and the sun was just above that cloud ect. ect. ect.. but yes, the mongols won at mohi but they also lost at mohi. there were 2 battles, not one. the first battle of mohi was a mongol loss. the scores are tied. equal. and i hate naruto
ninja909 9 months ago
@ninja909 Hate naruto yeah right youre a ninja and 2 batlles most people dont consider it two battles.
RalphyGreene 9 months ago
@RalphyGreene technicly it was 2 battles. call it one battle if it keeps your self esteem or whatever but the battle of mohi was seperated into 2 battles. the mongols invaded once at night, and again the next day. the mongols lost the battle at night. the mongols won the battle the next day. it wasnt all one battle.
ninja909 9 months ago
@ninja909 Ok thats like saying since since some battles in ww2 were several days its individual battles its all called the battle of mohi when you look it up online theres no battle of mohi 1 or battle of mohi 2 its battle of mohi and it was almost 2 days. You must be like 15 or something
RalphyGreene 9 months ago
@RalphyGreene
wow you cant just settle for an even score and end the argument. you have to continue to bitch and whine about how the mongols won every battle. what happened that night was a prelude to the battle of mohi. just cause it took place in the same location doesnt mean it was the same battle. cause as far as im concerened, the mongols lost that first battle. they invaded, and every mongol either was killed or retreated. if you dont call that a victory then your just some stuck up twat
ninja909 9 months ago
@ninja909 Some deluded comments here, evidences of western arrogance. Mongols just steamrolled through Europe, they had their most casualties at Mohi but if you consider that hungary had the best cavalry in Europe at this time it puts things into perspective. Mongols still beat them without losing too much troops. The mongol army was professional and disciplined (basically everything european armies werent)and would have pissed all of european armies even in the 1300s, don't fool yourself.
Communist1986 1 month ago
@Communist1986 you call me arrogant, then you go on to talk about pissing all over Europe. of course your username is communist, that doesn't surprise me a bit.
European armies weren't preofessional? or disiplined!? lol!!! I gues you never heard about the Roman Empire? or Alexander the Great? for one, the mongols almost retreated at mohi, and lost 30 of the khans best gaurds, so it wasn't a decisive victory at all. for two, the mongols aren't far off from huns, who lost to romans
ninja909 1 month ago
@ninja909 Wow, you know nothing I fear. This is Part 1 have a good read! Yes, they literally pissed all over Europe, I didn't make this up just look on the battle results. And don't lol so much, it just shows that you didn't understand that I was referring to the middle ages and not to the Ancient times, when Romans and Macedonians dominated. Yes European armies lacked discipline and team work, face it! They fought as individuals not like the Mongols, Romans, or Greeks as units.
Communist1986 1 month ago
@ninja909 Let me continue. Your next clam is that the Mongols lost many troops, which is also false. Infact Batu Khan crossed the bridge and took a minority of the main Mongol force with him, who had to stand, with their back to the sajo river, against the full force of the Hungarians. Batu were bound to have heavy casualties, but only Batu!! while Subutai commanded the main Mongol force who surrounded the Hungarians. Then it was piss easy as the Hungarians were shattered and fled.
Communist1986 1 month ago
@ninja909 The last part. So Subutai arrived, defeated the Hungarians and had only minor losses, which means that the Mongol main army had actually only a few losses.
Your last claim is that the Mongols are somewhat similar to the huns is absolut bullcrap as the huns were just a horde, who lacked organization and discipline, and by the time the Romans defeated them the backbone of their army was built up of Germanic tribes, who didn't use horse archer tactics like the mongols. owned.
Communist1986 1 month ago
@Communist1986
owned? seriously? what are you some kid who sees debating as a form of "owning" other people? the huns were horse archers. and yeah they were a horde, but so was the mongols. "golden horde". , this horde was defeated by Roman and Germans together. tactics were used in the medieval period. not at legnica, no, but they were used allot amongst the English. oh and if you payed attention, I wouldn't have to repeat myself. the mongols almost retreated at mohi.
ninja909 1 month ago
@ninja909 Is that your answer, noob? I think I was right about you. I'm no kid I am probably elder than you, but I dislike goddamn idiots who don't shut the fuck up about something they don't know much about, and you are one of them as I can judge by your few comments on here which basically lack basic knowledge.
Ok once again only for you the huns and the mongols are not cmparable, that's like compairing the Germans with the Romans because both relied on infantry.
Communist1986 1 month ago
@ninja909 As I said before the huns were an unorganized bunch without proper military training, drill and professional staff. The Mongols on the other hand were like a modern army.They were disciplined, had a professional staff, thus able to take actions independent from the General, they had a flag-signal system, they used psychological warfare (puppets on horses to make them numerically superior than they actually were and they used bombs and chinese rocket launchers.
Communist1986 1 month ago
@ninja909 Back to the huns: when they arrived 375 AC they were a bunch of horse archers, but in 451, when they had the battle against the Romans, they were basically an infantry army in the ANCIENT times not in the middle ages you noob. That was because they integrated all those Germanic tribes in their army.
If you would read a book instead of reading wiki articles in 5 minutes I wouldn't embarass you that much.
Communist1986 1 month ago
@ninja909 And stop claiming the mongols almost retreated at Mohi.That's just hungarian nationalist bullshit, Polands and Germans say the same about legnica and Russians say they saved Europe because they inflicted so many casualties on the Mongols at the kalka river. Infact they all got raped and the Mongols won those battles with relative ease. So, where's your source that the whole Mongol army wanted to retreat? And try something better than wikipedia, a book maybe if you what that is.
Communist1986 1 month ago
@Communist1986 you don't embarass me at all.
you're basically just trying to cover your losses. yes, the mongols almost retreated at mohi. I've read up the information, and it's more reliable than your bullshit.
the mongols already had started to retreat before the khans grandsom stopped them.
the mongols only decisive victory was at legnica. that's ONE battle, moron.
and by the way, no ones going to go around making stuff up on wiki just to support an argument like this.
ninja909 1 month ago
@ninja909 If you didn't notice that I have embarrased you, you must be more stupid than I thought, think about it, because other people actually READ your comments.In other comments you claimed, Mohi was actually 2 battles, which is the most stupid thing I have read on youtube, and this has to mean something. I have explained to you what happened in the battle and you responded nothing valueable about it. You still weren't able to bring up a source to back your claims, which is pathetic.
Communist1986 1 month ago
@Communist1986 there's no way I'm responding to all of that.
I don't have that kind of time. anyways, yes, another battle took place before the main event of mohi, it took place on the bridge the previous day. battle, skirmish, feud, call it whatever you want, it was a devistating mongol loss at that. my gosh, you liberal morons are such ignorant pricks, you bitch and whine and do anything to cover up the smallest defeat you could possibly face. grow up and get used to it.
ninja909 1 month ago
@ninja909 You don't respond, because you know nothing, not because you don't have enough time. By the way, my comments to you took me 5-6 minutes. So you don't have 5-6 minutes? Haha ok, bad excuse. And then you should know the difference between a battle and an encounter. That little encounter on the bridge was part of the battle and it wasn't a devastating mongol loss due to the small size of the units. You must be some kind of a masochist returning to this place to get raped by me.
Communist1986 1 month ago
@Communist1986 I simply dont feel like wasting time. deal with it.
anyways, it was a little more than an "enounter". a skirmish at least.
and the mongols were superior to the polish. the polish. the hungarians didn't do that bad, and it's no doubt other places in Europe such as England would have done much better.
ninja909 1 month ago
@ninja909 Anyway there isn't more to say, if you (or anyone else) is interested in a book about the Mongol Invasion of Europe I recommend the book "The Devil's Horsemen: The Mongol Invasion of Europe" from James Chambers. It has plenty of informations about the battles in that time.
Communist1986 1 month ago
@ninja909 I never said the Mongols were unbeatable. They had their defeats as well. They were just in the same manner superior to their enemies, particularly in Europe, as I am superior to you in my history knowledge. Funny that such a wannabe historian like you calls me ignorant because, as it stands now, you're the epitome of ignorance. You better don't talk shit about history and expect people to swallow it, there is always someone like me here and owns you for that. Or be prepared next time.
Communist1986 1 month ago
@ninja909 I have never read the Mongols wanted to retreat at Mohi. Could you give me the source? Although I am sure you aren't able to give me one, because you're too stupid to read a book. And why you say Mohi wasn't decisive? That's funny because after Mohi there wasn't anything that could have stopped the Mongols from raping Hungary, and that's why they did, they totally devestated the country.
Communist1986 1 month ago
@ninja909 Answer this question: If the Mongols suffered so many casualties at Mohi, why didn't they immediately retreat? Instead they raped Hungary and pursuit King Bela and Mongol spies were already seen in Vienna . Later, with the dead of the great Khan they had to retreat, Batu couldn't be sure about the loyalty of his army. Infact if one of those battles was decisive it was Mohi not Legnica, because the Poland had still some forces left.
Communist1986 1 month ago
@ninja909 to the wikipedia argument: I understand why you said this, because wikipedia is basically your only source, because your are so uneducated, but it doesn't matter to me, it's not a good source, when it comes to history. Yes there are some nationalists that try to change history, by making their own country look stronger than they actually were. In this case they claim Mohi was a Phyrric victory for the Mongols, ignoring the fact, that the Hungarians acted very stupid in the battle.
Communist1986 1 month ago
@ninja909 For example: Hungarians build a camp at Mohi, which was too tight, for this large army, Mongols flooded the sky with arrows and hit very often, because there was no room for the Hungarians to maneuver, which was a main reason, why the Mongols slaughtered them so easily. Those Hungarian nationalists ignore these facts, which are confirmed by other historians, because it doesn't sound good, does it? They don't have the balls to admit they fucked up big time and acted retarded.
Communist1986 1 month ago
Nice work. i too like to create my own scenarios and have more than the 200 population limit. I have about 1000 soldiers on the screen like you. :)#
In the battle of mohi, the mongols suffered huge casualties under hungarian knights
womblewandering 1 year ago
@womblewandering i've heard it both ways, but the general consensus was that they simply didn't want to pursue king whatsit, for fear of more casualties or whatever
niteman555 1 year ago