Battle of Lechfeld (910)

The First Battle of Lechfeld
Part of the Hungarian invasions of Europe
Date 12 June, 910 Location Lechfeld plain, near Augsburg, Bavaria Result Crushing Hungarian victory
Belligerents
East Francia, Swabia	Principality of Hungary
Commanders and leaders
- Louis the Child -Count Gozbert of Alemannia (the real commander of the army) † -Managolt, count of Alemannia †	Unknown Hungarian commander
Strength
Unknown	Unknown
Casualties and losses
Heavy, among them count Gozbert, and Managolt, the count of Alemannia	Light

The Battle of Lechfeld in 910, was an important victory by a Magyar army over Louis the Child's united Frankish Imperial Army.^[1][2] Located south of Augsburg, the Lechfeld is the flood plain that lies along the Lech River. At this time the Grand Prince of Hungary was Zolta, Zoltán of Hungary, but there is no record of him taking part in the battle.

This battle is one of the greatest example of the success of the famous feigned retreat tactic of the nomadic warriors, but also is a good example how the psychological warfare can cause important defeats on the enemy.

The battle appears as the first Battle of Augsburg^[3] in Hungarian historiography.

Sources

Antapodosis, seu rerum per Europam gestarum, written by Liutprand of Cremona,^[4] Continuator Reginonis, Annales Alamannici,^[5] Necrologies of the German counts (Gozbert and Managolt), killed in this battle. The chronicle named Annalium Boiorum VII, written in the 16th century by the Bavarian humanist Johannes Aventinus is also a very important source of this battle, because it narrates in a detailed way the first battle of Augsburg, relying on old sources, which today are lost. However he makes some mistakes by putting this battle in 907, quickly after the Battle of Pressburg, its place at Ennsburg in Bavaria, and instead of Swabians, names the Bavarians as its participants.^[6]

Location and date

The majority of the historians accept the date and place of the battle given by Liutprand of Cremona as 910, respectively Augsburg. Although Liutprand of Cremona's work Antapodosis was written in the 950's, so only a few decades after the events, the Hungarian historian Torma Béla believes that not him, but Aventinus, who wrote in the XVI. century, was right when he put the battle which he presents in detail, in 907 and at Ennsburg and not Augsburg, as Liutprand points.^[7] However he represents a dissenting opinion, from the other historians, who believe, that the contemporary Liutprand's information is right.

Background

This battle was part of the war between the, in the Carpathian Basin, newly settled Hungarians and the East Frankish kingdom, which lasted between 900, the conqering of Transdanubia by the Hungarians from the Bavarians, and 910, the Battle of Rednitz. After the Battle of Pressburg, the Hungarians continued their campaigns against East Francia, in order to subdue completely the Germans, beaten in 907. In 908 a Hungarian army invaded Thuringia, killing, in the Battle of Eisenach its duke, Burchard, duke Egino, Duke of Thuringia and Rudolf I, Bishop of Würzburg. In 909 a Hungarian army invaded Bavaria, but it was defeated by Arnulf, Duke of Bavaria in a minor battle near Pocking.

Prelude

Maybe wanting to repeat the victorious campaigns of his ancestor, Charles the Great against the Avars, ended with the subduing of the latters, but forgetting the fate of Luitpold 3 years before in the Battle of Pressburg, king Louis the Child decided that the forces from all the German duchies should come together and fight the Hungarians. He even threatened with execution those who would not come under his flag.^[8] So we can presume that Louis gathered a "huge army", like Liutprand names it in Antapodosis.^[9] Unfortunately we do not know its exact number, but it can be presumed that it was far more bigger than the Hungarian army, which explains why the Magyars during the battle were so cautious, and waited unusually long time (more than 12 hours), weakening little by little the strength of the enemy with hit and run tactics, and using also psychological metods to fool them, before they made the decisive tactical step.

The historian Igaz Levente says that the Hungarian campaign of 910 was started in order to prevent another German campaign against the Hungarian territories like the one from 907, which ended with the disaster of the Western army in the battle of Pressburg. Although it was a crushing Hungarian victory, the Magyars thought that it is safer to put the place of the military operations in Germany.^[10] We can name this Hungarian campaign as a brilliant example of the preventive war strategy.^[11]

The king and his troops arrived near the city of Augsburg, on the plains of Gunzenle, near the Lech river, and waited for the Frankish army led by Gebhard, Duke of Lorraine to appear and join them against the Hungarians. The kings army was led by count Gozbert,^[12] because Louis the Child was very young, only 16 years old.^[13] We do not know who led the Hungarians, but it seem to be a military leader, and not the Grand Prince of the Hungarians, who in the IX-X centuries never took place in a battle outside of the Hungarian territories, the campaigns being led by more minor military leaders, maybe the gyula,^[14] the horka or one of the princes.^[15]

The Hungarians learned about plans of Louis the Child, and sent quickly a Hungarian army, which rushed to prevent the joining of the Swabian and Frankish-Lotharingian-Bavarian forces. From the work of Aventinus: Annalium Boiorum volume VII, we can reconstruct even their route: after they crossed Bavaria through the river Enns, they reached Augsburg through Tegernsee then Sandau near to Landsberg am Lech.^[16] They reached Augsburg on forced march very quickly, totally unexpected for Louis the Child and his army.^[17] This is another proof of the incredible efficience of the importance given to the espionage by the Principality of Hungary, and other states of the nomadic warriors.^[18][19] because the unexpected appearance of the Hungarians before the battle of Augsburg is hard to believe that it was only a coincidence. This shows that the Hungarian intelligence worked very effectively not only in Hungary, but also in the enemy territory, making possibe the moving of the place of the military operations on his land. As Liutprand of Cremona mentions, the king did not waited that the Hungarians will appear in his land so quickly.^[20] So his plans of uniting all of his forces: his mostly Swabian troops and the Frankish-Lotharingian-Bavarian army, before the battle, failed because of the remarkable espionage of the nomadic Hungarian state and the superior mobility of the Magyar army, which made possible for them to defeat these two armies separately. In conclusion we can say that the Hungarian spies learned of the German armies preparations and informed the Magyar commanders so quickly, that these had the time to gather an army and move in the German territory so quickly that the Eastern Franks had no time not only to reach Hungary, but even to finish the concentration of their troops, and start to move towards it. Still, from the account of Liutprand of Cremona it can be understood that, even without the Frankish help, the kings army had much more soldiers than the Hungarians.

One historian supposes that a small Hungarian unit kept the Frankish Army busy until the Battle of Augsburg ended. Hungarian nomadic warriors used similar tactics elsewhere. They distracted enemies with simple maneuvers to hide the real tactical movement and intent. An example is the Battle of the Brenta.^[21]

Battle

In the dawn of 12 June 910, the Hungarian horsemen made a surprise attack, shooting arrows from distance on the kings sleeping camp, killing many Germans with their nomadic arrows in their sleep, or quite after they woke up.^[22] But this attack was only a minor preparatory, so called swarming attack^[23] in order to diminguish the fighting spirit of the Germans,^[24] after which they retreated to their camp.

The first phase of the battle.

The Germans prepared for battle, making their battle formation, and it begun, with the Hungarians, probably in small swarming archer groups, attacking on horses, shooting arrows on the Germans, who protected themselves with their wall of shields. After a while the Hungarians retreated feigning defeat, and when the German heavy mounted horsemen pursued them, they shoot arrows back on the Germans, killing many of them, while their horses continued to retreat. In the course of the day this tactic was used a several times.^[24] Probably the German army was composed of infantry and heavy cavalry, with heavy shields, lances and swords, while the Hungarians were all light cavalry, with bow and arrows as their main weapon. This is why when the Germans attacked, only the heavy cavalry pursued the Hungarians, while the infantry formed a solid wall, and stayed in their places.^[13] Because of their light weapons and armor, Hungarians were more mobile and quick, but at the same time more vulnerable to the Germans heavy weapons. But their nomadic composite bows were much more superior than the European bows, and because of this they could kill the enemy with their arrows, without being reached by theirs. Also the Hungarian horses were quicker than the German ones, because they had less weight to carry. But still, in order to lure the German soldiers after them, the Hungarians had to move very close, and even start short hand to hand squirmishes with the superior Germans, in the places of the defensive line, where they saw weaknesses, then to run, when the situation started to be severe, convincing the enemy that he is about to win, persuading him to pursue them, and with this to break his battle formation, giving them the opportunity to exploit this, and inflict heavy losses on them.

It was 7 a clock in the evening, which is more than 12 hours from the start of the battle (at dawn), and Louis the Child thought that his troops are about to win the battle. At this moment the Hungarians started a general attack, then again used the famous feigned retreat tactic of the nomadic warriors, starting to retreat in haste, like they were defeated. ^[25] We do not know for sure why, but at this point the Germans were very sure that they won the battle, and started a general attack on the retreating Hungarians, leaving their well protected defensive lines, and breaking their battle formation in their rush to catch up the Hungarians, who retreated in ordered lines, very careful of not disorganising their battle order.^[26]

The second phase of the battle.

Maybe they did not wanted to wait for another night, thinking that the Hungarians will shoot arrows on them all the night, destroying their camp, or they tired by the unusual length of the battle (it lasted all day, from dawn to evening), in the hot summer sun,^[27] or they were traumatised by the ever growing losses inflicted on them by the Hungarian arrows, or on the contrary the Hungarians, with their monotone, apparently unsuccessful attacks against their lines aroused in them a self-conceit that they are about to win the battle.^[27] Nevertheless, this shows that the Hungarians used again the psychological warfare tactics, making the enemy troops to be frightened, or to lose their will to fight, or to be exaggeratedly self-conceited, which made them easier to defeat. The Hungarians also used the psychological warfare in another battle occurred 11 years earlier: the Battle of Brenta River, feigning defeat in an early skirmish, then running away, showing to the enemy commanders that they are despared, then sending envoys to them asking for forgiveness, with this convincing the enemy to feel pretentious and comfortable, then striking in an unexpected moment and destroying the Italian army.^[28]

During the whole battle of Augsburg the Hungarians waited for this moment, hiding their reserve troops in woods^[29] that allowed concealing huge numbers of soldiers. The retreating main Hungarian army lured the attacking German cavalry on the places in which their reserve troops were hidden, and they continued to retreat until the whole pursuing German cavalry crossed the narrow field which separated two woods in which the Hungarian reserves were hidden, when suddenly without observing them, these hidden Hungarian reserves came out from their hiding places and attacked the Germans with big screaming in order to frighten and demoralize them before the final clash.^[30]

The third phase of the battle

In this moment the retreating Hungarian main troops turned back and attacked the Germans from the front, resisting to their charge, and not letting them break their line.^[31] At that moment those Hungarian units who came from the rear and sides of the Swabians, surrounded them completely, and entered in a final hand-to-hand fight with the hopeless enemy.^[32] This shows that before the battle the Hungarian commander chose carefully a place near the initial battlefield, with two woods near to each other, in which he could hide some of his troops, which waited until the pursuing Germans passed them, and then attacked them. One of the key elements of the nomadic warfare was the careful choosing of the battlefield, which provide them advantage in winning the battle.^[33] For nomads one of the important elements in a battlefield were the places where they could hide some of their troops, and to lure the enemy there in order to encircle and destroy it.^[34] In the battle in point, the German camp and its surroundings was not adequate for hiding troops without being observed by the Swabians, so the Hungarian commander chose an adequate place away from the battlefield (the 1. battlefield), where he could hide some of his units (this being the 2. battlefield), and his main purpose during the battle was to lure the enemy to that place, which he succeeded after manoeuvres which lasted from the dawn until the evening, finally ending with success. This shows the great patiente of the Hungarian commander, who in the whole day conducted manoeuvres which diverted the enemies attention from his real purpose. The same thing happened also during the events which led to the Battle of the Brenta (899), this time against the Italians, battle in which probably the Hungarians were led by the same commander.

The fact that the Hungarian troops which performed the tactic of the feigned retreat, luring the German cavalry at the 2. battlefield, could withstand, in the decisive moment, the charge of the Swabian heavy cavalry, shows that the Hungarians had also troops with adequate armor and weapons to resist a charge from the most formidable heavy cavalry of those times. Their success was also facilitated by the fact that they retreated in order, when the Swabians lost theirs. This shows also that the Hungarian commander chose attentively which branches to use in the precise moments of the battle, and that he was totally at charge of his troops from the beginning until the end of the battle.

From Liutprand‘s account ("the kings people") we can understand that the king was not among the pursuing German cavalry, so this is why he escaped. In this slaughter, because they could not break the Hungarian encirclement, probably no German cavalrymen survived, and presumably here was killed count Gozbert,^[35] the real commander of the army and Managolt, the count of Alemannia, who were leading the attack of the German cavalry.

The last phase of the battle.

At this point the king Louis the Child had to be among the infantry, which marched after the German cavalry from far behind, thinking that they won the battle, but when arrived to the new battle scene, he saw that his bravest soldiers were slaughtered by the Hungarians, short before. From Liutprand of Cremona‘s account we can understand very well that he was not part of the slaughter of the cavalry, and he saw only the result of it a little later. He narrates his astonishment, despair at that moment, and the fact that he was totally fooled and misleaded by their clever tactics.^[36]

The remaining German infantry troops started to run away in despair, trying to save their lives. Probably the bodyguard unit of the king, which was mounted, managed to save him, and take him away quickly from the battlefield, while the Hungarians were busy of slaughtering the running German infantry, which suffered very heavy losses, caused by the Hungarian horsemen, who because these were the rules of nomadic warfare (eliminate the beaten enemy and his commanders completely ^[37]), pursued them all the way, killing every one in their reach.^[38]

Aftermath

The king escaped entering in the nearest town with walls: probably Augsburg, but the Germans lost almost their entire army. The Hungarian losses were so light, that after just 10 days, on 22 June, they managed to annihilate, in the Battle of Rednitz, the other German army, the Frankish-Lorrainian-Bavarian one, which before the battle of Augsburg was waited to unite with the main army led by the king Louis the Child, and to fight together against the Hungarians, killing also the commanders of that army, among them Gebhard, Duke of Lorraine. So, the Hungarian army, with a "Napoleonean" tactic (István Bóna),^[13] cleverly managed to attack and beat these two armies separatedly. After these two battles the Hungarian army plundered and burned the German territories, and nobody tried to fight them again, retreating to the walled towns and castles, and waiting them to turn back in Hungary.^[39] On their way back home the Hungarians plundered the surroundings of Regensburg, burned Altaich and Osterhofen.^[40] Only the Bavarians managed to beat a minor plundering Hungarian unit at Neuching,^[41] but this did not changed the fact: the annihilation of much of Germany's military power and capability to withstand the Hungarian attacks. This is demonstrated by the fact that after these defeats, Louis IV. the Child, the German king, together with the Swabian, Frankish, Bavarian and Saxonian princes accepted to pay tribute to the Hungarians.^[42]

Howewer Louis the Child had not survived for long these battles, dying in 911, maybe caused by the trauma and humiliation of these defeats. His successor as German king, Conrad I of Germany (911-918), refused to pay any tribute to the Hungarians (however the dukes of Bavaria and Swabia paid from 917 tribute to the Magyars, who helped their fight against the German kings ^[43][44]), and this caused frequent attacks on Germany made by the Hungarian nomadic armies (911, 913, 915, 917, 919, 924), which caused many defeats (Eresburg - 915, Püchen 919), destruction (the burning of Bremen 915, Basel 917) and plunderings, and just a few successes (particularly in 913), which finally forced king Henry the Fowler in 924 to start again to pay tribute to the Hungarians, until 933, the Battle of Riade which ended the long (26 years) period of Hungarian military superiority and domination in Germany. However the Hungarian raids in Germany continued until 955, their defeat in the second Battle of Lechfeld.

References

1. Charles R. Bowlus, The Battle of Lechfeld and Its Aftermath, August 955: The End of the Age of Migrations in the Latin West, Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2006, p. 166
2. Szabados György Vereség háttér nélkül? Augsburg 955 Hitel 18 (2005)/8. 24–30
3. Szabados György: Vereség háttér nélkül? Augsburg, 955
4. Györffy György: A magyarok elődeiről és a honfoglalásról; Osiris Kiadó, Budapest, 2002 p. 213-214 From Antapodosis of Liutprand of Cremona. Hungarian translation from the original Latin of those part, which are about the Hungarians.
5. Werra, Joseph, Über den Continuator Reginonis
6. Johannes Aventinus: Annalium Boiorum VII, 1554 p. 481. Original Latin text: "Quidam similitudine nominum, quae una duntaxat literula distant, decepti, hanc cladem Boios accepisse tradunt ad Augustam Rhetiae, quae Teutonum sermone Auspurg, ut Anasiburgium Ansburg nuncupatur." English translation from the Latin: "Some people, fooled by the similarity of the names which are differentiated only by a single letter, say that the Bavarians were massacred at Augusta Rhetia, named by the in the language of the Teutons Augsburg, as well as it is named in the tongue of the Anasiburgians as Ansburg"
7. Torma Béla Megjegyzések a 907. és 910. Évi magyar kalandozások időrendjéhez, Hadtörténelmi közlemények, 125. évf., 2012/2, pp. 463-482.
8. Györffy György: A magyarok elődeiről és a honfoglalásról; Osiris Kiadó, Budapest, 2002 p. 213 From Antapodosis of Liutprand of Cremona. Hungarian translation from the original Latin: "Lajos király tehát látva népének pusztulását és a magyarok kegyetlenkedését, övéinek lelkét feltüzeli ama fenyegetésével, hogyha valaki történetesen kivonná magát ebből a hadjáratból, amelyet a magyarokkal szemben szándékozik viselni, az ilyen kétségen kívül akasztófán fogja végezni." English translation from the Hungarian: King Louis, seeing the destruction suffered by his people, and the atrocities committed by the Magyars, he instigated them [the Germans] with the threat, that if somebody will back out of this campaign, which he wants to lead against the Hungarians, without doubt will be hanged"
9. Györffy György: A magyarok elődeiről és a honfoglalásról; Osiris Kiadó, Budapest, 2002 p. 213
10. Igaz Levente, "... A király maga is csodálkozik azon, hogy ő, a győztes, legyőzötté vált...", Belvedere Meridionale, 2012/2, p. 6
11. Igaz Levente 2010, p. 6
12. Reuter, Timothy. Germany in the Early Middle Ages 800–1056. New York: Longman, 1991., p. 129
13. Bóna, István (2000). A magyarok és Európa a 9-10. században ("The Hungarians and Europe in the 9th-10th centuries") (in Hungarian). Budapest: História - MTA Történettudományi Intézete. p. 37. ISBN 963-8312-67-X.
14. Szabados György: Magyar államalapítások a IX-XI. században; Szegedi Középkori Könyvtár, Szeged, 2011, p. 201
15. Dénes, József. "Az elfelejtett évszázad - a honfoglalástól Szent Istvánig" (in Hungarian). Retrieved 2015-06-01.
16. Kristó Gyula: Levedi törzsszövetségétől Szent István Államáig; Magvető Könyvkiadó, Budapest, 1980, p. 239
17. Werra, Joseph: Über den Continuator Reginonis; Gressner & Schramm, Leipzig, 1883, p. 69 Annales Alamannici for the year 910, Latin text: "Ungari in Alamanniam; bello insperato. ". English translation: Hungarians in Alamannia; an unexpected war".
18. Göckenjan, Hansgerd: Felderítők és kémek. Tanulmány a nomád hadviselés stratégiájáról és taktikájáról (Scouts and spies. A study about the strategy and tactics of the nomadic warfare). In: Nomád népvándorlások, magyar honfoglalás; Balassi Kiadó, Budapest, 2001, p. 57-66 (about the Hungarian intelligence: p. 61-63)
19. Grubbs, John Ty. "The Mongol Intelligence Apparatus: The Triumphs of Genghis Khan’s Spy Network" (PDF). Retrieved 2015-06-05.
20. Györffy György 2002 p. 214 From Antapodosis of Liutprand of Cremona. Hungarian translation from the original Latin: "Lajos király már megérkezett összetoborzott sokaságával Augsburgba, amikor jelentik azt a nem remélt, vagy inkább nem óhajtott hírt, hogy e nép ott van a szomszédságukban." English translation from the Hungarian: King Louis with his recruited crowd [huge army] arrived to Augsburg, when he was informed of the unhoped, better to say unwished news that this people [the Hungarians] is in his neighborhood"
21. Lipp Tamás: Árpád és Kurszán; Kozmosz Könyvek, Budapest, 1988, p. 97-99
22. Györffy György 2002 p. 214 From Antapodosis of Liutprand of Cremona. Hungarian translation from the original Latin: "Tehát még mielőtt "Aurora elhagyná Titonius sáfrányszínű ágyát", a magyarok népe öldöklésre szomjasan, és vágyódva a harcra, meglepi a még ásítozó keresztényeket, mert többeket a nyíl előbb ébresztett fel, mint a kiáltozás; másokat pedig, akiket ágyukban döftek keresztül, sem a zaj, sem a sebek nem ébresztették már fel, mivel előbb szállott el belőlük a lélek, mint az álom". English translation from the Hungarian: So, before "Aurora leaves her safron coloured bed" [=before dawn; from Vergilius - Georgica], the Hungarian folk thirsty for massacre, and longing for fight, surprise the still yawning Christians, because many were woke up earlier by the arrows, than the screaming; the others who were pierced through [by arrows] in their beds, neither the noise, nor the wounds couldn't already wake them up, because their souls left their body earlier, than the sleep".
23. Edwards, Sean J. A., Swarming on the Battlefield: Past, Present, and Future, CA: RAND Corporation, 2000
24. Igaz Levente 2010, p. 8
25. Györffy György 2002 p. 214 From Antapodosis of Liutprand of Cremona. Hungarian translation from the original Latin: "A lenyugvó nap már hét órát mutatott, és a hadiszerencse még Lajos részének kedvezett, mikor a türkök, minthogy nem ravaszság nélkül valók, szemtől szembe cselt vetnek és futást színlelnek". English translation from the Hungarian: The sundawn showed already seven a clock, when the Turks [Hungarians], because they are not without cunning, used a trick face to face, and feigned flight".
26. Johannes Aventinus: Annalium Boiorum VII, 1554 p. 481. Original Latin text: "Nostri auidius incomposito agmine, solitiscque ordinibus insequuntur, ad insidias perducuntur." English translation from the Latin: "Ours [the Germans] with more courage chase, in disorder, their ordered lines, and are lured in an ambush"
27. Igaz Levente 2010, p. 10
28. Tarján Tamás, 899. szeptember 24. A kalandozó magyarok győzelme Berengár fölött, Rubicon
29. Johannes Aventinus: Annalium Boiorum VII, 1554 p. 481. Original Latin text: "Nam Ugri in syluis, quae erant forte campo iunctae, suos condiderant." English translation from the Latin: "When the Hungarians concealed their [warriors] in the woods, which, by chance, were near the [battle]field."
30. Johannes Aventinus: Annalium Boiorum VII, 1554 p. 481. Original Latin text: "Ubi praetergressi sunt siluam, qui in ea latitabant, ex improuiso terga nostrorum, cum clamore adoriuntur." English translation from the Latin: "When they let the wood, which widened in itself, behind, suddenly they [the Hungarians] appeared screaming in ours rear."
31. Johannes Aventinus: Annalium Boiorum VII, 1554 p. 481. Original Latin text: "Qui ante fugerant, gradum sistunt, fortiter repugnant." English translation from the Latin: "Those who ran, stop their march and resist with heroism."
32. Györffy György 2002 p. 214 From Antapodosis of Liutprand of Cremona. Hungarian translation from the original Latin: "Amikor a király népe, a cselvetést nem sejtve, a legerősebb lendülettel üldözőbe veszi őket, a lesben állók minden oldalról előjönnek, és megsemmisítik a győzteseket, azok, akiket már legyőzötteknek véltek". English translation from the Hungarian: When the kings people, without suspecting any machination, start to chase them with the greatest vigour, those [the Hungarians] who they [the Germans] thought that are already defeated, waited in ambush, come out form every places, destroying the victors".
33. Igaz Levente 2010, p. 7
34. Zólyomi Zsolt, Magyar harcmódor az Árpád-korban bizánci források alapján, Hadmérnök, 2011/3, p. 324
35. Werra, Joseph: Über den Continuator Reginonis; Gressner & Schramm, Leipzig, 1883, p. 69 Annales Alamannici, Latin text: "Ungari in Alamanniam; bello insperato, multos occiderunt et Gozpertus comes occisus. ". English translation: Hungarians in Alamannia; an unexpected war, many killed and the leader Gozpertus was killed".
36. Györffy György 2002 p. 214 From Antapodosis of Liutprand of Cremona. Hungarian translation from the original Latin: "A király maga is csodálkozik azon, hogy ő, a győztes legyőzötté vált, és a nem sejtett csapás még súlyosabbá válik számára". English translation from the Hungarian: The king himself was surprised, that he, the victor became defeated, and the unwaited blow became even more crushing for him".
37. Györffy György 2002 p. 109 Tactica of Emperor Leo VI the Wise, referring to the Hungarians and other nomadic warriors. Hungarian translation from the original Greek: "Hogyha pedig megfutamították az ellenfeleiket, minden egyebet félretesznek és kíméletlenül utánuk vetik magukat, másra nem gondolva, mint az üldözésre. Mert nem elégednek meg, miként a rómaiak és a többi nép, ideig-óráig való üldözéssel és zsákmányszerzéssel, hanem mindaddig szorítják, amíg csak teljesen fel nem morzsolják az ellenséget, minden eszközt felhasználva e célból" English translation: If they put to flight their enemies, they put all things aside, and they start to pursue them ruthlessly, without thinking to nothing, then to the chasing. Because they are not contended with a short chase, and plundering, like the Romans and the other nations, but they push the enemy, until it is completely destroyed, using all methods for achieving this purpose.
38. Györffy György 2002 p. 214 From Antapodosis of Liutprand of Cremona. Hungarian translation from the original Latin: "Bizony az ember láthatta volna a cserjéseket és mezőket szerteszéjjel hullákkal borítva, s a patakokat és folyókat vértől vörösleni. Ekkor még a lovak nyerítése és a kürtök harsogása is a futókat rémítette és az üldözőket egyre inkább ösztönözte". English translation from the Hungarian: Certainly, you could see the shrubs and the fields filled with scattered bodies, and the creeks and the rivers rudding from blood. That time even the neighing of the horses and the blare of the horns terrified the fugitives [Germans] and stimulated more and more the pursuers".
39. Györffy György 2002 p. 214 From Antapodosis of Liutprand of Cremona. Hungarian translation from the original Latin: "A magyaroknak teljesült ugyan az óhajuk, de aljas természetüket mégsem elégítette ki a keresztények ily mérhetetlen legyilkolása, hanem, hogy álnokságuk dühét jóllakassák, keresztülszáguldoznak a bajorok, svábok, frankok és szászok országán, mindent felperzselve. Nem is akadt senki, aki megjelenésüket máshol, mint a nagy fáradtsággal, vagy a természettől fogva megerősített helyeken bevárta volna. A nép itt jó néhány éven keresztül adófizetőjük lett" English translation from the Hungarian: Although the Hungarians fulfilled their wish, their mean nature was not satisfied by the so immeasurable slaughtering of the Christians, but in order to satisfy the anger of their perfidy, they gallopped along through the county of the Bavarians, Swabians, Francians and Saxons, burning everithing. Indeed, nobody remained who could wait until they arrived, in other place than the places fortified with great effort or by nature. The people who lived here paid them tribute many years from now on"
40. Kristó Gyula 1980, p. 240
41. Baják lászló: A fejedelmek kora. A korai magyar történet időrendi vázlata. II. rész. 900-1000 ("The Era of the Princes. The chronological sketch of the early Hungarian history. II. part. 900-1000"); ÓMT, Budapest, 2000 p. 13
42. Szabados György: Vereség háttér nélkül? Augsburg, 955
43. Vajay Szabolcs, Der Eintritt des ungarischen Staemmebundes in die Europaeische Geschichte (862-933) Ungarisches Institut München. V. Hase & Koehler Verlag. Mainz, 1968, p. 57
44. Honfoglalás, /Út_az_új_hazába_A_magyar_nemzet_története_Levédiától_1050-ig./ Út az új hazába. A magyar nemzet története Levédiától 1050-ig., p. 12