蒂萨河之战
| 蒂萨河之战 | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 蒙古第一次入侵匈牙利的一部分 | |||||||
 | |||||||
| |||||||
| 参战方 | |||||||
.svg){kind=small} 匈牙利王国 | 蒙古帝国 | ||||||
| 指挥官与领导者 | |||||||
| 贝拉四世 |
拔都 速不台 昔班 | ||||||
| 兵力 | |||||||
|
80,000人[1] 50,000人[2] 25,000人[3][4][5] |
~15,000–30,000名骑兵 (现代估计)[6] 其他估计: 70,000人[7] 50,000人[2] 20,000人[8] 至少七台投石机 | ||||||
| 伤亡与损失 | |||||||
|
约 10,000人 (现代估计)[9] 大部分军队[10] |
数百人[11] 沉重 (先锋队)[12][13][14] | ||||||
穆希之战（Battle of Mohi），1241年蒙古帝国在第二次西征中入侵匈牙利，同年4月由拔都率领的蒙古军在穆希的赛约河（今匈牙利东部蒂萨河支流）战胜了时任匈牙利国王贝拉四世率领的匈牙利军队。此场战役又名为赛约河之战、蒂萨河之战。
拔都与速不台率领的蒙古军在征服斡罗斯后，乘匈牙利准备不及而实行突袭，将所辖军队分成四个纵队，先扫荡匈牙利守备薄弱地区，以造成对匈牙利主力的钳击之势。而匈牙利的贝拉四世避战待援，匈牙利联军约三万人，其声势浩大且士气较旺，自认为有信心抵抗蒙古军。
蒙古军进抵佩斯城附近，得知匈牙利军两倍于蒙古军兵力，且勇而善战。蒙古军决定采取诱敌歼灭之计，将其已到达多瑙河的兵马开始向东撤退。匈牙利联军以为蒙古军不敢渡河攻击，便过多瑙河同蒙古军决战。匈牙利军渡河后没有发现蒙古军主力，只见到少数巡逻部队，误认为蒙古军大部队已先行撤走，贝拉四世于是率领匈牙利联军向东追击，连续数日，已远离多瑙河，仍未追上撤退的蒙古军主力，于是驻营在赛约河西的索尔诺克。为防止蒙古军的偷袭，以赛约河为天然障阻，四周又环拱小山，构筑工事。当夜得知蒙古军隔河仅六里之遥，贝拉四世又派一千精兵把守桥头和营外，还以货车排列构成防护圈。
黎明之前，拔都军派一支军队向赛约河对岸桥头布署伏击工作但被阻扰，便在进入白天之后改以投石机猛攻。然而贝拉四世轻忽情势延迟增派援军，而蒙古军则设法分兵应战，战事陷入僵持。
进入夜晚后，匈牙利联军被伴随着雷鸣般的声音和火光搞得晕头转向使其守桥者被迫后撤，蒙古军队顺利连续地过了桥。当时，蒙古军队是否正在使用东欧军事史上的第一门加农炮，因证据不足只能存疑，但这是现代火炮雏形在13世纪的表现。受此骚乱刺激的贝拉军主力急忙从其防御营地出击，随之发生激烈的战斗。然而，战局突然明朗了，这只是蒙古军队牵制性的攻击。
主攻是由速不台亲自指挥的3个万户实施的，他率部队在桥头之南涉过蒂萨河冰冷的河水，然后转向北打击匈牙利军队的左翼及侧后。匈牙利人不能抵挡这一毁灭性的冲击，慌忙退入其营地，其后被蒙古军队完全包围。蒙古骑兵渡河，在平原展开攻势。速不台率部沿河下，联军立即以密集队形向蒙古军冲击，蒙古军从正面后退到匈牙利军两侧，形成两翼包围。蒙古军队以燃烧的箭和石脑油炸弹持续进行了几小时的轰击。对一些绝望的匈牙利军队来说，西面似乎有一道缝隙，有几个士兵安全地逃了出去。由于蒙古军队攻击的密度转至别处，越来越多的匈牙利士兵溜了出去。
蒙古军队同时还施放烟幕使匈牙利军迷失方向，渐次进入错综复杂的地形，蒙古军缩小包围圈，以远距离火箭焚烧匈牙利军营地。由于防线崩溃，残存者急于同那些已逃出去的人会合。战斗队形演散，许多逃跑者丢盔弃甲，以保性命。突然，他们发现自己已陷入蒙古军队的陷阱。蒙古士兵骑上快速的战马，从四面八方出现，分割了精疲力竭的匈牙利士兵，将他们赶进沼泽之中，并突击了有些士兵企图避难的村子。经过几小时恐怖的屠杀，匈牙利军队被彻底摧毁，死亡数千人。但各条道路均被蒙古军堵塞，蒙古军为避免匈牙利军死斗，在平原西方通多瑙河处开一缺口，故意让匈牙利军逃走，尔后连续追击六日，歼灭联军一万余人。
匈牙利国王贝拉四世及整个匈牙利王室出逃维也纳寻求协助，但被他们的仇人奥地利大公腓特烈二世软禁进而勒索，要求贝拉偿还六年前腓特烈被迫向其支付的赔偿金，对此贝拉只得妥协交出他身上所有贵重财产并同意割让三县土地，之后贝拉被释放又逃往仍在匈牙利控制下的达尔马提亚。更为严重的是，匈牙利军队的失败使蒙古人控制了从第聂伯河到奥得河以及从波罗的海到多瑙河的整个东欧，进占佩斯城将其烧毁，往后更重挫其首都埃斯泰尔戈姆。作为巴尔干半岛强国之一的匈牙利被击溃令整个亚得里亚海东岸陷入恐慌。
注脚
[编辑]- ^ Carey, Brian Todd, p. 124
- ^ 2.0 2.1 Sverdrup, p. 115, citing Kosztolnyik.
- ^ Markó, László, Great Honours of the Hungarian State, Budapest: Magyar Könyvklub, 2000, ISBN 963-547-085-1
- ^ Liptai, Ervin, Military History of Hungary, Budapest: Zrínyi Katonai Kiadó, 1985, ISBN 963-326-337-9
- ^ Frank McLynn, Genghis Khan: His Conquests, His Empire, His Legacy, (Da Capo Press, 2015), p. 469: "The older authorities used to give statistics of 70,000 Hungarians and 40,000 Mongols but it seems likely that these numbers are too high; modern historians tend to opt for about 20,000 Mongols versus 25,000 Hungarians, but certainty is impossible."
- ^ Sverdrup, pp. 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 (three in Hungary, one in Transylvania, and one in Poland). He proceeds to say that while the nominal total of the Mongol force in Hungary was 30,000, the effective total on the field at Mohi would have been between that number and 15,000, close to the latter.
- ^ 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 Leignitz to the North and Hermannstadt (Sibiu) to the South. All three victories occurred in the same week.
- ^ McLynn, p. 469
- ^ Sverdrup, p. 115
- ^ Thomas of Spalato, Historia, 163;
- ^ McLynn, p. 473
- ^ 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 Béla'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.
- ^ The Mongol Empire: A Historical Encyclopedia, Vol. II, ed. Timothy May, (ABC-CLIO, 2017), 103.
- 《中国战典 上》. 中国人民革命军事博物馆编著 北京：解放军出版社 1994 第775页.
参考文献
[编辑]- Amitai-Preiss, Reuven. The Mamluk-Ilkhanid War. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1998. ISBN 0-521-52290-0.
- Carey, Brian Todd. Warfare in the Medieval World. Pen & Sword Books. 2007. ISBN 978-1-84415-339-8.
- Gabriel, Richard A. Genghis Khan's Greatest General: Subotai the Valiant. Norman, Okla.: University of Oklahoma Press. 2006. ISBN 0-8061-3734-7.
- Kosztolnyik, Z. J. Hungary in the Thirteenth Century. East European Monographs; No. CDXXXIX. New York: Columbia University Press. 1996.
- Morgan, David. The Mongols
. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. 1990. ISBN 0-631-17563-6. - Nicolle, David. The Mongol Warlords. Brockhampton Press. 1998.
- Regan, Geoffrey. The Guinness Book of Decisive Battles. Canopy Books. 1992. ISBN 9781558594319.
- Saunders, J. J. The History of the Mongol Conquests. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. 1971. ISBN 0-8122-1766-7.
- Sicker, Martin. The Islamic World in Ascendancy: from the Arab conquests to the siege of Vienna. Praeger Publishers. 2000.
- Soucek, Svatopluk. A History of Inner Asia. Cambridge University Press. 2000. ISBN 9780521657044.
- Jackson, Peter. The Mongols and the West. Pearson Longman. 2005.
