蒙古第一次入侵匈牙利

蒙古人第一次入侵匈牙利始于1241年3月，并于1242年3月下旬开始撤退。

蒙古第一次入侵匈牙利
蒙古侵略欧洲的一部分
Johannes de Thurocz（英语：Johannes de Thurocz）的《Chronica Hungarorum（英语：Chronica Hungarorum）》，描绘了蒙古入侵情况
日期 1241年3月 – 1242年4月 地点 匈牙利王国和克罗地亚王国（今匈牙利、克罗地亚、斯洛伐克、伏伊伏丁那和部分罗马尼亚） 结果 蒙古方胜利 蒙古人并未征服匈牙利王国，亦未能俘获贝拉四世。 蒙古人在1254年、1259年和1264年的后续要求被忽视，最终引致第二次入侵。
参战方
匈牙利王国 特兰西瓦尼亚省（英语：Voivode of Transylvania） 克罗地亚王国（英语：Kingdom of Croatia (1102–1526)） 圣殿骑士团 库曼人 次要交战国： 奥地利公国 （1241年4月为止）	钦察汗国 （蒙古帝国）
指挥官与领导者
贝拉四世 科罗曼·乌戈尔斯基（英语：Coloman of Galicia-Lodomeria） （伤重而死） 丹尼士·托马伊（英语：Denis Tomaj）  † Nicholas Szák  † 保罗·杰雷吉（英语：Paul Geregye） Rembald de Voczon 腓特烈二世 忽炭	拔都 速不台 昔班 别儿哥 孛栾台
参战单位
主要是轻骑兵 圣殿骑士 弩兵 步兵	骑兵，主要是弓骑兵和枪手 投石车（英语：Lithobolos） 可能有中国火器部队和其他火药部队
兵力
~30,000 士兵 (现代估计)[1][2] 其他估计： （只计算蒂萨河之战） 80,000[3] 25,000[4][5] 50,000[6]	~40,000 骑兵 (现代估计)[7] 其他估计： （只计算蒂萨河之战） 70,000[8] 25,000[4][5] 50,000[6]
伤亡与损失
超过10,000个士兵阵亡[9]	未知，但很严重[10][11][12][13]

入侵

1241年，速不台和拔都率领的蒙古军队入侵包括波兰、保加利亚、克罗地亚和匈牙利王国等在内的中欧和东欧国家。匈牙利试图在蒂萨河之战阻止入侵但以失败告终。尽管少数重装甲骑士（主要来自圣殿骑士团）在近距离战斗中有好的表现^[14]，但构成大部分匈牙利骑兵团队的轻骑兵对蒙古军队无效。蒙古人粉碎了匈牙利军队，并在次年继续蹂躏农村，甚至将匈牙利首都埃斯泰尔戈姆给摧毁。至战役结束时，匈牙利约有四分之一的人口被杀，王国的大部分主要定居点已沦为瓦砾^[15]。

其大多数城镇和堡垒城墙以木质、粘土和泥土等构成^[16]，这些防御设施很容易被蒙古人攻城器械攻破^[17]，也有许多匈牙利定居点根本没有任何防御工事；一位德国编年史家观察到，匈牙利人“几乎没有城墙或坚固堡垒保护的城市”。^[18]然而，为数不多的匈牙利石头城堡没有一个倒塌，即使是那些在蒙古人阵线后面的城堡；蒙古军队试图以攻城器械攻击克利斯要塞，但并没有带来任何破坏且被击退，伤亡惨重^[19]。

撤军

1241年夏秋两季，大部分蒙古军队驻扎在匈牙利平原。1242年3月下旬，他们开始撤退。其中最常见的说法是窝阔台于1241年12月11日去世的消息传至前线迫使蒙古人撤退到蒙古一带以选举新的大汗^[20]。

但据伊儿汗国的丞相拉施德丁称拔都决定撤退时并不知道窝阔台的死，其指出他们从匈牙利撤出以镇压库曼叛乱，然后在1242年晚些时候离开欧洲，并认为这是因为他们觉得已经完成使命，而非任何外部影响^[21]。

参见

• 长子西征
• 蒂萨河之战
• 埃斯泰尔戈姆围城战

参考

1. William of Rubruck. "The journey of William of Rubruck to the eastern parts of the world, 1253-55." Translated by William Woodville Rockhill. Page 281. "It would be very easy to conquer or to pass through all these countries. The King of Hungary has not at most XXX thousand soldiers."
2. Sverdrup, p.115: "A near-contemporary source says the Hungarians lost 10,000 men in the Mohi battle. This is no precise number, but as most of the army was lost it may be close to what the author believed the size of the whole army was. When Mongol officer Siban spied the Hungarian camp some weeks before the battle he counted 40 units [Rashid al-Din, 2:474]. In those days the Hungarian units, the so-called banderias, were usually between 50 and 400 men strong [See Julius Bartl, "Slovak History: Chronology and Lexicon" (Bratislava 2002), p. 191]. An average size of 250 would indeed give a total of 10,000 men." [a maximum average of 400 would have given 16,000 men].
3. Carey, Brian Todd, p. 124
4. Markó, László, Great Honours of the Hungarian State, Budapest: Magyar Könyvklub, 2000, ISBN 963-547-085-1
5. Liptai, Ervin, Military History of Hungary, Budapest: Zrínyi Katonai Kiadó, 1985, ISBN 963-326-337-9
6. Sverdrup, p. 115, citing Kosztolnyik.
7. Sverdrup, p. 114-115, citing Rashid al-Din's chronicles, 1:198, 2:152. Rashid Al-Din's figures give Batu and Subutai about 40,000 horsemen total when they invaded Central Europe in 1241 (including Turkic auxiliaries recruited since the conquest of Rus), divided into five columns; one made a diversionary attacks into Poland, but rejoined with the other four in Hungary after Legnica and participated in the invasion.
8. Carey states on p. 128 that Batu had 40,000 in the main body and ordered Subotai to take 30,000 troops in an encircling maneuver. Batu commanded the central prong of the Mongols' three-pronged assault on eastern Europe. This number seems correct when compared with the numbers reported at the Battles of Legnica to the North and Hermannstadt（英语：Battle of Hermannstadt） (锡比乌) to the South. All three victories occurred in the same week.
9. Sverdrup, p. 115. Citing: Gustav Strakoschd-Grassmann. Der Einfall Der Mongolen In Mitteleuropa In Den Jahren 1241 und 1242 (Innsbruck, 1893), p.183.
10. The Mongols in the West, Denis Sinor, Journal of Asian History, Vol. 33, No. 1 (1999), page 15;"...on April 11, Batu's forces executed a night attack on the Hungarian camp, inflicting terrible losses on its trapped defenders..[..]..While the outcome of the encounter is beyond dispute-some call it a massacre rather than a battle-historians disagree on their assessments of Bela's apparent ineptitude. Of course the Hungarians could have done better; but it is beyond doubt that no "ad hoc", feudal type force could have matched the well disciplined, highly trained, professional soldiers of the Mongol army. A seldom considered measure of the efficacy of the Hungarian resistance is the size of the losses sustained by the attackers. These were very heavy.."
11. John France, Perilous Glory: The Rise of Western Military Power, (Yale University Press, 2011), 144.
12. A Global Chronology of Conflict: From the Ancient World to the Modern Middle East, Vol. I, ed. Spencer C. Tucker, (ABC-CLIO, 2010), 279;"Although Mongol losses in the battle are heavy...".
13. The Mongol Empire: A Historical Encyclopedia, Vol. II, ed. Timothy May, (ABC-CLIO, 2017), 103.
14. Sugar, p.27: "The majority of the Hungarian forces consisted of light cavalry, who appeared 'oriental' to the Western observers. Yet this army had given up nomadic battle tactics and proved useless when facing the masters of this style of warfare. Hungarian tactics were a mix of eastern and western military traditions, as were the ineffective walls of clay bricks and palisades. Two elements of the Hungarian defense had proved effective, however: close combat with mass armored knights and stone fortifications".
15. Sugar, p.27: "In the plains, between 50 and 80 percent of the settlements were destroyed. In forested areas, in the mountains, and in Transylvania, the demographic loss is estimated at 25-30 percent".
16. Jackon, p. 65
17. Sugar, p. 26: "The country centers, lacking defenses, and the residences of [nobles], protected at best by moats, fences, and wooden towers, were no obstacle. Using ballistas, the Mongols leveled the forts, and put the settlements to the torch".
18. Jackson, p. 66
19. Kosztolnyik, p. 174
20. John of Plano Carpini, “History of the Mongols,” in The Mission to Asia, ed. Christopher Dawson (London:Sheed and Ward, 1955), 44
21. 7 Rashid al-Din, "Successors of Genghis Khan", trans. John Boyle 1971, p. 70-71: "The princes, proceeding by these five routes, seized all the territories of the Bashgh'ird, Majar, and Sas [all refer to the Hungarians], and put their king, Keler [Bela], to flight. They spent the summer on the Tisa [Tisza] and Tanha rivers. Qadan now took the field with an army, captured the territories of the Taqut (Croatians), Arbaraq (Serbs), and Asraf (Vlachs), and pursued Keler, the king of those countries, to the seacoast. When [Keler] embarked on a ship, Qadan turned back... The news of Qa'an's (Ogodei's) death had not yet reached them... In the autumn they returned and passed into the region of Temur-Qahalqa (Caucasus)... they proceeded thither and defeated the Qipchaq (Kipchak/Cumans), who had fled to that region... In the beginning of the taulai yil, that is, the Year of the Hare, corresponding to the months of the year 640/1242, having completed the task of conquering the country, they turned back."

书籍

• Jackson, Peter. The Mongols and the West, 1221–1410. Routledge. 2005.
• Peter F. Sugar, Péter Hanák, Tibor Frank -- A History of Hungary. 1990 Indiana University 448p. ISBN 978-0253208675
• Salagean, Tudor (2016). Transylvania in the Second Half of the Thirteenth Century: The Rise of the CongregationSystem. Brill.
• Saunders, J. J. (1971). The History of the Mongol Conquests. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
• Sophoulis, Panos. The Mongol Invasion of Croatia and Serbia in 1242. Fragmenta Hellenoslavica. 2015, 2: 251–77.
• Sverdrup, Carl (2010). "Numbers in Mongol Warfare". Journal of Medieval Military History. Boydell Press. 8: 109–17 [p. 115]. ISBN 978-1-84383-596-7.
• Sweeney, James Ross. Thomas of Spalato and the Mongols: a Thirteenth-Century Dalmatian View of Mongol Customs. Florilegium. 1982, 4: 156–83.