Battle of Mohi Heath, 1241
|
Medieval Era
|
2 comments
| Subedei versus King Bela IV: A Mongol army under Subedei is confident of victory against a larger Hungarian army under Bela. Will Subedei’s smoke and mirrors prove to be too much for Bela’s numbers? Also known as the Battle of the Sajo River. Click on images below to view battle; first image opens video presentation and the second image opens PowerPoint presentation.
This battle should scare Western historians; a Mongol invading army annihilates a Hungarian army while another annihilates a Polish army at Leignitz, opening Eastern Europe to destruction. This could have been a preview for the rest of Europe had the Mongols not just suddenly withdrew. Would the Mongols have made short work of Western Europe? The debate continues.
The crucial failure of Bela in this battle is reconnaissance; by assuming the river had only one crossing, he allowed a large Mongol force to envelop his own. Subedei meanwhile proved his flexibility; after failing to lure Bela across the bridge as intended, he quickly devised another equally devastating plan. This battle is a stereotypical Mongol victory and features a wide range of their tactics.
 This is the most complicated battle I will ever animate. Take a look at what my screen looked like when I was finishing the animation, here. Even so, Mongol battles are excellent examples of how to not only defeat, but to annihilate, the enemy.
- Jonathan Webb
Tell a Friend:
            Tags: bela, catapult, cavalry, envelopment of both flanks, feigned retreat, horse-archer, hungarian, hungary, infantry, medieval, mongol, mongolia, mongul, siege, subedei, valiant, wagon
 |
SPONSORED SITES
|
|
|
||
Supported Sites |
Supported Readings |
Weider History Group |
Weider History Network: HistoryNet | Armchair General | Once A Marine | Achtung Panzer! Terms of Use | Copyright © 2009 Weider History Group. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited. |
||
Loading ...
2 Comments to “Battle of Mohi Heath, 1241”
I don’t want to argue about the exaggerated numbers (perhaps 60-67,000 Hungarians vs. 40-45,000 “mongols”), nor 1000 mongol losses (ludicrous for a battle lasting “from early sunrise to late afternoon).
But where did you get 58,000 INFANTRY?
Early Hungarians were exclusively horsemen, had no infantry at all, did not appear in standard army until 15th century! Andy
By Andy Zubrits on Jun 14, 2009 at 3:25 pm
I actually thought Yarmuk would stir the most controversy for numbers but my research has shown that no battle’s numbers are completely universal.
Please note my numbers are 70,000 Hungarians versus 50,000 Mongols, suffering 65,000 and 4,000 casualties respectively. These numbers are well-supported by my sources located on my Works Consulted page (bottom of home page) and appear accurate based on accounts of the battle.
As for the composition of the Hungarian force: Edwards in “Swarming and the Future of Warfare” states that “this Christian armywas composed of a small core of heay cavalry supported by more numerous mercenary foot soldiers and relatively poorly-armed and undisciplined feudal levies.” From my research I concluded that the purely Hungarian army elements of this mixed force were in fact mainly cavalry but the rest were just as Edwards described. This would also explain why so few escaped or were able to make a concentrated counterattack against the Mongol encirclement.
Again, sources vary. Thank you for coming forward to discuss numbers/exaggerations, it is not discusssed constructively enough in my opinion.
By Jonathan Webb on Jun 15, 2009 at 2:44 pm