^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."
^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].
^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.
^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） (錫比烏) to the South. All three victories occurred in the same week.
^Sverdrup, p. 115. Citing: Gustav Strakoschd-Grassmann. Der Einfall Der Mongolen In Mitteleuropa In Den Jahren 1241 und 1242 (Innsbruck, 1893), p.183.
^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.."
^John France, Perilous Glory: The Rise of Western Military Power, (Yale University Press, 2011), 144.
^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...".
^The Mongol Empire: A Historical Encyclopedia, Vol. II, ed. Timothy May, (ABC-CLIO, 2017), 103.
^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".
^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".
^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".
^John of Plano Carpini, “History of the Mongols,” in The Mission to Asia, ed. Christopher Dawson (London:Sheed and Ward, 1955), 44
^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."
書籍
Jackson, Peter. The Mongols and the West, 1221–1410. Routledge. 2005.
