Pretty well done, actually! (I was expecting the usual half-naked savage Magyars, you know.) An interesting point: Germans didn't attack Hungary until 1030. 907-1030 indicates a pretty successful policy. (You can read my articles on all this on Academia.edu).
Yes, back then the the warfare of Magyars wasn't very advanced. the Magyars illustrated in the picture are more like those during the high medieval ages, and the main part of the battle happend in a gravel plain, there were only some minor clashes in the neighbouring forests!
I would have to disagree. I'd say the use of single and double envelopment, distance warfare (massed archery) and close-in warfare, then advanced command and control methods similar to those of the Mongols, these were far in advance of the Europeans at the time. I agree with your details, but where are the depictions of Magyar victories in 907, 908, 909 and especially First Lechfeld 910? I can see there is a lot of work to be done to inform people about the facts!!
Yes, but being victorious doesn't necessarily means more advanced warfare. The Germans back then had different types of heavy cavalry while Magyar army was made of mostly horse archers. Their initial victories was because of their massive number and the fact tha Europeans were too busy to fight each other and were not ready to deal with the possible treats from the East!
I hear what you're saying, but take the Mongols. They had what you call "less advanced" cavalry, but defeated everyone. Or consider the USSR. They had essentially primitive weaponry, but lots of it, so they won. Isn't whatever leads to victory "advanced". It's a hard question! Just some points. The "massive numbers" of expeditionary forces sent by the Hungarians doesn't seem to have ever exceeded 5,000 and they were very strong in defence. (907, 1030, 1051/2) The Magyar bow was more advanced than anything in Europe and would remain so for centuries. They also kept mounted archers until advances in gunpowder pushed archery out everywhere around 1500. You point about the Europeans squabbling is true, and the Magyar expeditions were very carefully calculated to keep it that way. Are you aware that in every expedition, they were in alliance with the "other" king, or prince or whatever? Hungarian historians have now, after some 30 years of debates, rejected the idea that these were raids. The current view is they were centrally controlled military campaigns aimed at keeping Europe divided and avoiding the fate of the Huns and Avars. Seems like the plan worked!
I don't consider anything leading to victory as ''advanced'', maybe ''superiority'' would be a more fitting term for that, which is a general word and can refer to many things. Since my first comment i was referring to weapons and armours of the Magyars. About USSR, i don't know much about the modern warfare, but as far as i know their weapons were not much primitive compared to others, even during early stages of WWII they had more advanced tanks than Nazis. Maybe comparison of Romans and Huns would be a more appropriate example. Romans had doubtlessly a better organization, better armour, Roman army was richer, they had really good commanders, but still thy lost many battles against Attila and finally could beat them with support from Germanic tribes. Would you know call Huns more advanced than Romans?! On the last point, of course i don't know as much as historians do , but by the look of it, Magyars finally settled down in Europe, so no arguments about that
Well, I suppose we could go a long way with the words "advanced" versus "superior". The Hungarians, contrary to what is still taught in many places, settled down in Europe in the 860s. Then, they were attacked by the HRE, starting in 899, and finally in a devastating attack in 907. Then they changed their tactics, going on the offensive. As to arms and armour, I have never seen them depicted accurately in the West. The closest I've seen was Arms and Armour's efforts, which were pretty good. They used an Asian helmet and lamellar armour, which is good against arrows, not as good against heavy swords. The European mail armour is not good against arrows, as they found out. A failed HRE attack in 950 showed the Magyar fortifications also to have been up to date. So, in short, I am calling for *accuracy* and well-informed work, that's all.
Salve, better horses - nice illustration, Historically, well, horses too big, they were about 140-150cm at withers, more spears, less swords as it went the spear, mace, ax and then sword as it was the last implement to be drawn etc. There is lots of Magyars reenactment pictures out there and there are many images on the web showing them etc, but the mistakes in such pieces belong to the author of the article or editors of the magazine and not the illustrator. So I like this illustration, mistakes notwithstanding
Wow, this looks really accurate as far as I can tell. I suppose the guy with the red cloak is king Otto? I've been wondering for some time if they wore chainmail and nasal helmets at that time. I know they did in the 11th century. I thought in the 10th century scale armor was more common. This is what Franks in 9th century depictions use to wear...
Thanks dude! The guy in the red is soon-to-be-dead Conrad the Red. Chainmail has been known even in ancient times, as to the nasals they were around at that time as far as I know, but probably the author of the article would be a better person to discuss that with. I would recommend grabbing a copy of Medieval Warfare if you're interested in the subject, it's a good read.
Ah, thanks for the clarification. Yes, I know the Romans had chainmail. Judging by depictions I was under the impression it came out of use in the early middle ages and later reintroduced (by Normans, I thought). Could however be it co-existed with other forms of armor.
facet lezacy na pierwszym planie wydaje sie rozplaszczony na siemi, a jego kon, ktort tez lezy chyba zgubił tułów. Chodzi mi o taka krawędz przy szyi tego konia. Ale ogolnie to szacun takie skomplikowane artworki
Dzieki za uwagi. Zachciało mi sie rzucić spłaszczający cień drzewa na tego poległego, a koniowi dałem pod siodło kocyk w kolorze trawy. Rozwiązania "mądre inaczej" :} No trudno, może następny z cyklu "bitwa" będzie lepszy...
ej ale miedzy tym kocykiem a krawedzia szyi jest taki prostokat trawy i to dziwnie wyglada. nie powinno byc tam wiecej ciala konia? XD i racja, rozwiazanie madre inaczej. tez tak mam czasem niefortunne decyzje po prostu.
Hmm na moje to tam lopatka konia wystaje. Ale moxe cos sie nie zgadza w anatomii.I pomyslec tylko, ze specjalnie w celu zdobycia refki musialem zastrzelic konia! Co prawda byl to tylko cyfrowy kon w grze Red Dead Redemption, ale i tak szkoda, ze zginal nadaremno...