蒂薩河之戰
| 蒂薩河之戰 | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 蒙古第一次入侵匈牙利的一部分 | |||||||
 | |||||||
| |||||||
| 參戰方 | |||||||
.svg){kind=small} 匈牙利王國 | 蒙古帝國 | ||||||
| 指揮官與領導者 | |||||||
| 貝拉四世 |
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名騎兵 (現代估計)[6] 其他估計: 70,000人[7] 50,000人[2] 20,000人[8] 至少七台投石機 | ||||||
| 傷亡與損失 | |||||||
|
約 10,000人 (現代估計)[9] 大部分軍隊[10] |
數百人[11] 沉重 (先鋒隊)[12][13][14] | ||||||
穆希之戰（Battle of Mohi），1241年蒙古帝國在第二次西征中入侵匈牙利，同年4月由拔都率領的蒙古軍在穆希的賽約河（今匈牙利東部蒂薩河支流）戰勝了時任匈牙利國王貝拉四世率領的匈牙利軍隊。此場戰役又名為賽約河之戰、蒂薩河之戰。
拔都與速不台率領的蒙古軍在征服斡羅斯後，乘匈牙利準備不及而實行突襲，將所轄軍隊分成四個縱隊，先掃蕩匈牙利守備薄弱地區，以造成對匈牙利主力的鉗擊之勢。而匈牙利的貝拉四世避戰待援，匈牙利聯軍約三萬人，其聲勢浩大且士氣較旺，自認為有信心抵抗蒙古軍。
蒙古軍進抵佩斯城附近，得知匈牙利軍兩倍於蒙古軍兵力，且勇而善戰。蒙古軍決定採取誘敵殲滅之計，將其已到達多瑙河的兵馬開始向東撤退。匈牙利聯軍以為蒙古軍不敢渡河攻擊，便過多瑙河同蒙古軍決戰。匈牙利軍渡河後沒有發現蒙古軍主力，只見到少數巡邏部隊，誤認為蒙古軍大部隊已先行撤走，貝拉四世於是率領匈牙利聯軍向東追擊，連續數日，已遠離多瑙河，仍未追上撤退的蒙古軍主力，於是駐營在賽約河西的索爾諾克。為防止蒙古軍的偷襲，以賽約河為天然障阻，四周又環拱小山，構築工事。當夜得知蒙古軍隔河僅六里之遙，貝拉四世又派一千精兵把守橋頭和營外，還以貨車排列構成防護圈。
黎明之前，拔都軍派一支軍隊向賽約河對岸橋頭布署伏擊工作但被阻擾，便在進入白天之後改以投石機猛攻。然而貝拉四世輕忽情勢延遲增派援軍，而蒙古軍則設法分兵應戰，戰事陷入僵持。
進入夜晚後，匈牙利聯軍被伴隨着雷鳴般的聲音和火光搞得暈頭轉向使其守橋者被迫後撤，蒙古軍隊順利連續地過了橋。當時，蒙古軍隊是否正在使用東歐軍事史上的第一門加農炮，因證據不足只能存疑，但這是現代火炮雛形在13世紀的表現。受此騷亂刺激的貝拉軍主力急忙從其防禦營地出擊，隨之發生激烈的戰鬥。然而，戰局突然明朗了，這只是蒙古軍隊牽制性的攻擊。
主攻是由速不台親自指揮的3個萬戶實施的，他率部隊在橋頭之南涉過蒂薩河冰冷的河水，然後轉向北打擊匈牙利軍隊的左翼及側後。匈牙利人不能抵擋這一毀滅性的衝擊，慌忙退入其營地，其後被蒙古軍隊完全包圍。蒙古騎兵渡河，在平原展開攻勢。速不台率部沿河下，聯軍立即以密集隊形向蒙古軍衝擊，蒙古軍從正面後退到匈牙利軍兩側，形成兩翼包圍。蒙古軍隊以燃燒的箭和石腦油炸彈持續進行了幾小時的轟擊。對一些絕望的匈牙利軍隊來說，西面似乎有一道縫隙，有幾個士兵安全地逃了出去。由於蒙古軍隊攻擊的密度轉至別處，越來越多的匈牙利士兵溜了出去。
蒙古軍隊同時還施放煙幕使匈牙利軍迷失方向，漸次進入錯綜複雜的地形，蒙古軍縮小包圍圈，以遠距離火箭焚燒匈牙利軍營地。由於防線崩潰，殘存者急於同那些已逃出去的人會合。戰鬥隊形演散，許多逃跑者丟盔棄甲，以保性命。突然，他們發現自己已陷入蒙古軍隊的陷阱。蒙古士兵騎上快速的戰馬，從四面八方出現，分割了精疲力竭的匈牙利士兵，將他們趕進沼澤之中，並突擊了有些士兵企圖避難的村子。經過幾小時恐怖的屠殺，匈牙利軍隊被徹底摧毀，死亡數千人。但各條道路均被蒙古軍堵塞，蒙古軍為避免匈牙利軍死鬥，在平原西方通多瑙河處開一缺口，故意讓匈牙利軍逃走，爾後連續追擊六日，殲滅聯軍一萬餘人。
匈牙利國王貝拉四世及整個匈牙利王室出逃維也納尋求協助，但被他們的仇人奧地利大公腓特烈二世軟禁進而勒索，要求貝拉償還六年前腓特烈被迫向其支付的賠償金，對此貝拉只得妥協交出他身上所有貴重財產並同意割讓三縣土地，之後貝拉被釋放又逃往仍在匈牙利控制下的達爾馬提亞。更為嚴重的是，匈牙利軍隊的失敗使蒙古人控制了從第聶伯河到奧得河以及從波羅的海到多瑙河的整個東歐，進佔佩斯城將其燒毀，往後更重挫其首都埃斯泰爾戈姆。作為巴爾幹半島強國之一的匈牙利被擊潰令整個亞得里亞海東岸陷入恐慌。
註腳
[編輯]- ^ 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》. 中國人民革命軍事博物館編著 北京：解放軍出版社 1994 第775頁.
參考文獻
[編輯]- 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.
