Comment on Battle of Lechfeld by EthicallyChallenged
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!!
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!
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 
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.
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.
That's true that's still a very good work!
Indeed, couldn't agree more!