4

Auxiliary Peoples and Military Reform

on Hungary’s Western Frontier in the Thirteenth Century

Sarolta Tatár

From 1283 to 1289, Duke Albert I of Habsburg was involved in several

campaigns against the Kőszegi family in western Transdunabia. During
these, he encountered Hungarian troops who still fought with the tradi-
tional tactics of steppe mounted archers. This article examines these
campaigns to identify these Hungarian soldiers as, most likely, the
descendants of Pechenegs who had settled in the region in earlier genera-
tions. Contemporary sources reveal both the strengths and the limitations
of such troops, who posed serious problems for Duke Albert but could not
ultimately block the success of his siege-oriented strategy in an area that
had, since the time of the Mongol invasions, seen the widespread introduc-
tion of modern fortifications.

The ancient empires of the Middle East, the Greeks and Byzantines, the Romans
and the Germanic states of the Middle Ages all encountered the Oriental strategy
of nomad peoples with surprise. Many authors describe the fundamental differ-
ence between the Western and the Eastern armies as heavy shock cavalry versus
light cavalry employing the famous stratagem of the feigned retreat, which
involved the light cavalry falling back to lure the enemy into disorder, then
turning to attack the surprised enemy. Their mounted archers employed a special
tactic requiring years of training, when they leaned back in the saddle and shot
their arrows at pursuing enemies, sometimes employing this tactic while circling
around the enemy. This was one of their more unusual and feared tactics, but
more broadly the victories of the nomads rested on more complicated military
tactics and excellent leadership. Moreover, the warfare of the nomadic peoples
was not monolithic: it had not only common features but also ethnic and historic
differences over the course of centuries.1 One tactical commonality was the

1 Cf. E. V. Cernenko, The Scythians 700–300 BC, Osprey Men-at-Arms 137 (Oxford, 1983);
János B. Szabó, “A sztyeppei hadviselés és a honfoglalók” [Warfare on the Steppe and the
Land-taking Hungarians], Rubicon 26 (2016/7), 4–11 on the complex military organization of
the Hungarians. Sources and descriptions about the Hungarians’ warfare: Leo VI, Taktika,
Chapters XIV/42; XVIII/43, 45, 49–76 in Ferenc Albin Gombos, ed., Catalogus fontium histo-
riae Hungaricae, vols. 1–4 (Budapest, 1937–38, repr. 2005–11) [hereafter abbreviated CFHH],
Figure 4.1  Campaign of Albert I of Austria, 1288-89.
 Auxiliary Peoples and Military Reform in Hungary 101

specially trained horses of the nomads.2 When they first arrived in the Danube
basin, the Hungarians used their traditional military tactics, but later they also
had to learn how to use the enemy’s weapons and warfare as a part of their
Western enculturation. However, for several centuries there was no shortage
of soldiers who were capable of nomad military tactics because Oriental tribal
groups kept arriving into the country. After the “Land-taking” of the seven
Hungarian tribes and the three so-called Kabar tribes (i.e. groups of Turkic and
most probably Iranian origin, who joined the Hungarians) at the end of the ninth
century, several tribal fragments of Eastern nomadic origin3 settled in Hungary
from the tenth century onwards:

1. The Turkic-speaking Pechenegs, who according to oral tradition recorded by

Anonymous (the author of the Gesta Hungarorum)4 first appeared in the reign of
suzerain Taksony (c.950) under leadership of their chief Thonuzoba and his son
Urkund.5 There are many persons and places called by their ethnonym (Besenyő)
in Hungary, therefore we may assume that this was the most numerous migrant
population6 before the Mongol invasion (1242).

2:1414–22, no. 3422; Latin transl. pp. 1432, 1437–39; cf. Gyula Moravcsik, “La tactique de Léon
le Sage comme source historique hongroise,” Acta historica Academiae Scientiarum Hungariae
1 (1952), 161–84; Regino, Chronicon, in CFHH, 3:2039 no. 4372; Liudprand of Cremona, Anta-
podosis, seu rerum per Europam gestarum, in CFHH, 2:1470 no. 3527; Ekkehard IV, Casus
Sancti Galli, in CFHH, 1:449–52 no. 1032. For the Hungarian translation of the texts see A
honfoglalás korának írott forrásai [hereafter abbreviated HKÍF] [Written Sources about the
Landtaking Period], Szegedi Középkortörténeti Könytár [Library of the Medieval History of
Szeged], ed. Gyula Kristó (Szeged, 1995), pp. 102, 103–09, 198, 215, 247–53.
2 László Bartosiewicz, “Gondolatok a ‘lovas nomád’ hagyományról” [Some thoughts on the
‘mounted nomad’ tradition], in Csontvázak a szekrényből. Válogatott tanulmányok a Magyar
Archaeozoológusok Visegrádi Találkozóinak anyagából 2002–2009 [Skeletons from the
Cupboard. Some Papers presented on the Meeting of the Hungarian Archaeozoologs in Visegrád,
2002–09], ed. László Bartosiewicz, Erika Gál, and István Kováts (Budapest, 2009), pp. 73–82.
3 Ethnic groups which were not important as auxiliary troops, e.g. the Bulgars, are not mentioned
here.
4 Anonymus Belae regis notarius, “Gesta Hungarorum,” §. 57, in CFHH, 1:255–6 no. 540.
5 Lajos Ligeti, A magyar nyelv török kapcsolatai a honfoglalás előtt és az Árpád-korban [The
Turkic Connections of the Hungarian Language before the Landtaking and during the Arpa-
dian Age] (Budapest, 1986), p. 385, and Árpád Nagy, “Eger környéki és Tisza-vidéki besenyő
települések a X-XI. században” [Pecheneg Settlements near Eger and the Tisza Region in
the 10th–11th centuries], Egri Múzeum Évkönyve (1969), 131–33. For a map of their settlements
in Hungary, see András Pálóczi Horváth, “Nomád népek a kelet-európai steppén és a közép-
kori Magyarországon” [Nomad Peoples on the Eastern European Steppe and in Medieval
Hungary], in Zúduló sasok: Új honfoglalók besenyők, kunok, jászok – a középkori Alföldön
és a Mezőföldön [Eagles Flying Low: New Landtakers – Pechenegs, Cumans and Jazygs on
the Medieval Hungarian Great Plain and the Mezőföld Region], ed. Péter Havassy, Sándorné
Boldog et al. (Gyula, 1996), p. 15.
6 Although the sources do not give exact and reliable numbers for the Pechenegs, they were
doubtless a large population on the steppe: see István Zimonyi, Muszlim források a honfoglalás
előtti magyarokról. A Ĝayhānī-hagyomány magyar fejezete [Muslim Sources on the Magyars
before the Landtaking. The Hungarian Chapter of the Ĝayhānī Tradition], Magyar Őstörténeti
Könyvtár 22 [Library of Early Hungarian History 22] (Budapest, 2005), p. 86.
102 Sarolta Tatár

2. The Turkic-speaking Oguz/Uz in the second half of the eleventh century. Settle-
ments called Uz, Uzdi, or Ózd probably belonged to them. The settlement of
Türkös, the rivulet Uz, its valley, and the pass all called Uz are to be found charac-
teristically close to the south-eastern border of historical Hungary in Transylvania,
a typical guard position in this threatened corner of the kingdom.7

3. Tatars and Tatrans, whose language is a matter of some debate (Mongolian or

Turkic).8 Persons called Tatar and place-names derived from this ethnonym
are frequently mentioned in chronicles and documents from the twelfth century
onwards. They often occur in Transylvania in the same region as the Uz, which
indicates that they were frontier guards as well. On the other hand, the so-called
nyögér guards of King Ladislaus IV (“the Cuman”: in Hungarian, Kun László)
were probably an ethnically mixed group, mercenaries of Oriental origin, not
exactly ethnic Tatars, although their name nyögér is a Mongolian borrowing into
the Hungarian language, meaning a member of the royal entourage.9 Such an
administrative term could easily come into the Hungarian language together with
a military unit, after the aristocracy of Mongolian origin subjugated the Pecheneg,
Oguz, Cuman and other peoples on the Pontic steppes and re-organized them as
the population in the new Khanate.

4. The first Cuman group arrived in Hungary in 1239, under leadership of their chief
Kötöny. Later other groups, fragments of six tribes from the Pontic steppe, were
settled on the Great Hungarian Plain.10

5. In their midst was a tribal fragment of Iranian origin, called Jász (pronounced
Yas).11

Such immigrant groups often served as auxiliary forces in the army of the recip-
ient state, a well-known solution and method of integration throughout Eurasia,
from China to the Atlantic.12 Several of these tribal fragments were incorporated
into the Hungarian royal army, and were expected to fight according to nomad
tactics.13 Exactly how this happened is a matter of debate. We know from Latin

7 Maria Magdolna Tatár, “The First Tatars in Europe,” in Altaica Budapestinensia. MMII.
The Proceedings of the 45th Permanent International Altaistic Conference (PIAC). Buda-
pest, Hungary, June 23rd–28th, 2002, ed. Alice Sárközi and Attila Rákos (Budapest, 2003),
pp. 336–39.
8 Tatár, “The First Tatars,” pp.  332 and ff., and László Rásonyi and Imre Baski, Onomasticon
Turcicum. Turkic Personal Names, vols. I–II, Uralic and Altaic Series 172/1–2 vols. (Bloom-
ington, 2007), 172/2:718–19.
9 Tatár, “The First Tatars,” pp. 334–35, 346.
10 Korai magyar történeti lexikon (9–14. század) [hereafter KMTL] [Lexicon of Early Hungarian
History, 9th–14th cents.], ed. Gyula Kristó, Pál Engel, Ferenc Makk (Budapest, 1994), pp. 383–84.
11 György Györffy, A magyarság keleti elemei [The Eastern Elements of the Hungarians] (Buda-
pest, 1990), pp. 303–11. See map of Cuman and Yas settlements in Pálóczi Horváth, “Nomád
népek,” p. 26.
12 See Zimonyi, Muszlim források, p. 90.
13 About these tactics see Johannes Gießauf, “A lovasnomád fegyverzet és harcmodor az ellen-
felek beszámolóinak tükrében” [The Weaponry and Strategy of Mounted Nomads in Light
 Auxiliary Peoples and Military Reform in Hungary 103

documents that the military service of Cumans was pervasive and organized.14
But we also suspect that not all Pechenegs were warriors, though often only
their distant memory appears in documents, without much information about
the old settlers of a village. Therefore it is difficult to determine their original
functions.15 Another matter of debate is how nomadic tactics and warriors were
incorporated into the Hungarian royal army. Western sources indicate that ordi-
nary Hungarian warriors were also light cavalry, even as late as in the fourteenth
century. There seems to have been some survival of the original warrior tradi-
tions of the nomadic Hungarians of the tenth century. Yet Hungarian nobles
were also recorded as having fought in knightly armor and also in the Western
knightly orders such as the Templars, Hospitallers16 and Teutonic Knights, all
of whom were present in Hungary.17 But when did Hungarian nobles begin to
fight like knights? This turn of events is often attributed to the conscious mili-
tary reform applied by Béla IV (r. 1235–70) after the Mongol invasion, which
involved the building of Western-type stone fortifications and the raising of
the numbers of warriors in full metal armor in the army. However, weapons
of Western origin were found in Hungarian graves dating from as early as the
tenth century. To what extent the introduction of knightly arms and armor also
involved knightly rituals and initiation is unknown. Probably the full effect of
chivalric culture was not introduced in Hungary until the Angevin and Luxem-
burg dynasties came to power (starting in 1308).18
In any case, sources describe Hungarian soldiers with armor and weapons
of the Western type in the first battle against the Mongols (Muhi, 11 April
1241), a fact which was the cause of many casualties among them, since
the heavy Western armor dragged the Hungarians and their King Louis II
down into the marshes, where they drowned. This was not limited to the
Templar knights, who had excellent armor and heavy weapons of Western
type and who all lost their lives in the battle against the numerically superior
Mongols.19 Many commoners and notables, including bishops, also died in the

of Adversary Sources], in Fegyveres nomádok, nomád fegyverek [Armed Nomads, Nomadic

Weapons], Magyar Őstörténeti Könyvtár 21 [Library of Early Hungarian History 21], (Budapest,
2004), pp. 26–37.
14 Pálóczi Horváth, “Nomád népek.”
15 Sarolta Tatár, “A Pecheneg Legend of Origin from Hungary,” in Sources of Mythology.
Ancient and Contemporary Myths. Proceedings of the 7th Annual Conference on Comparative
Mythology, 15th–17th May 2013, Tübingen, ed. Klaus Antoni and David Weiss (Vienna, 2014),
pp. 317–36.
16 József Dénes, “A vasvári ispáni vár helye” [The Location of the Fortress of the Comitatus of
Vasvár], Vasi Szemle 45 (1991) p. 363.
17 Zsolt Hunyadi, The Hospitallers in the Medieval Kingdom of Hungary. c.1150–1387 (Budapest,
2010).
18 The exact nature of tradition and reform, and the interaction between the various segments
of the royal army has been debated for 200 years. See János B. Szabó, A honfoglalóktól a
huszárokig - A középkori magyar könnyűlovasságról [From the Hungarian Landtakers to the
Hussars – The Medieval Hungarian Cavalry], (Budapest, 2010).
19 “... magister vero Templarius cum tota acie Latinorum occubuit...” Thomas Spalatensis archi-
104 Sarolta Tatár

lakes and marshlands into which the Mongols had driven them, as reported
by Magister Rogerius and Thomas Spalatensis.20 The Mongols had already
used the same method on 15 March 1241, during a combat near Pest, when
their vanguard lured Ugrin (Ugolin), the bellicose archbishop of Kalocsa, into
a marshland, which he and his soldiers could not traverse due to their heavy
arms.21 The sixteenth-century poet János Temesvári explained the same event
even more clearly: the Mongols easily waded out because they had light arms,
but the Hungarians had heavy armor and therefore could not wade out of
the marshland.22 The same sources also describe the Mongols using the well-
known nomad stratagem of the feigned retreat, setting traps for the Hungarians
again and again, and also emphasize how the Mongol archers caused turmoil
and many casualties among the Hungarians: the same tactics that the Pech-
enegs and Székelys, as part of the Hungarian army, had employed against the
invading German army in 1116.
Obviously, Western weapons were in use before the Mongol invasion and
the subsequent military reform. Heavy armor and weapons of Western type and
the stratagem of building a closed and narrow camp turned out to be not only
useless but the cause of a tragic defeat in battle against the light Mongol cavalry
of Oriental style. In the rest of this article, I intend to extrapolate on a detail of
this development of the art of war and participate in the discussion about late-
thirteenth-century military reform.

diaconus, Historia Salonitanorum, in CFHH, 3:2235 no. 4781. See Tatárjárás, and Rogerius
magister, “Carmen miserabile,” in CFHH, 3:4470, nos. 2077, 30, translated as Master Roger,
“Epistle to the Sorrowful Lament upon the Destruction of the Kingdom of Hungary by the
Tatars,” in Martyn Rady and László Veszprémy, “Anonymus and Master Roger: Gesta Hunga-
rorum: Anonymi Bele Regis Notarii / the Deeds of the Hungarians: Anonymus, Notary of
King Bela.”, in Anonymous and Master Roger: Anonymus, Notary of King Bela: The Deeds of
the Hungarians; Master Roger’s Epistle to the Sorrowful Lament Upon the Destruction of the
Kingdom of Hungary by the Tatars, Central European Medieval Texts V, trans., annotated, ed.
János Bak, Martyn Rady, and László Veszprémy (Budapest, 2010).
20 “De numero vero laicorum maiorum et minorum, qui suffocati fuerunt paludibus et aquis...”:
Rogerius magister, “Carmen miserabile,” in CFHH, 3:2077 nos. 4470, 30; Master Roger,
Lament §30. See also Thomas Spalatensis Historia, in CFHH, 3:2236 no. 4781: “Tunc misera-
bilis multitudo, quam nondum devoraverat gladius Tartarorum, ad quamdam paludem venire
compulsa, non est permissa diversam ingredi viam. Sed urgentibus Tartaris in eam ingressa est
pars maxima Hungarorum, ibique ab aqua et luto pene omnes absorpti sunt et extincti.”
21 Magister Rogerius, “Carmen,” in CFHH, 3:2073 nos. 4470, 21: “Hoc archiepiscopus non
advertens, cum proximus illis esset, festinus intravit, et cum esset cum suis armorum pondere
pressus, transire vel retrocedere nequierunt.”
22 “Tatárok könnyen ott általgázolának,/ Mert könnyű fegyverben mindnyájan valának,/ De kik
fegyveresek magyarok valának,/ Érsekestől sárból ki nem mászhatának,” Temesvári János deák,
“A Béla királyról, mint jöttenek be a tatárok és elpusztították mind egész Magyarországot”
[About King Béla, How the Tatars Arrived and Destroyed all Hungary] in Tatárjárás, p. 233.
 Auxiliary Peoples and Military Reform in Hungary 105

Pechenegs in Transdanubia
The title of this article refers to the later thirteenth century, when the military
reform was already in progress after the Mongol invasion. We cannot solve
every problem connected with this subject in this article, so we will focus on
one detail, that of continued Pecheneg activity along Hungary’s western frontier
after the military reform, with emphasis on Count Albert of Habsburg’s war
against the Kőszegi family from 1285–90, which also involved King Ladislaus
of Hungary and Rudolf, King of the Germans, both on Albert’s side. The Pech-
enegs were settled in Transdanubia at an unknown date after 950 (but no later
than about 1200), and probably arrived in several waves of immigration. A Latin
document from 1224 issued by the Palatine confirms the Pechenegs in Árpás
as military personnel and determines their economic obligations.23 The Pech-
enegs in Fejér County had their own comitatus with some degree of autonomy.24
These documents indicate that the Pechenegs of Transdanubia and the rest of
Hungary had a different legal status depending on whose lands they lived on
and what privileges were granted by the court to that particular group, based on
their service to the throne or the church. Latin documents had been issued in
Hungary since the institution of the Christian kingdom by Saint Stephen I in the
year 1000, but their number rose significantly around 1200, after the structure
of the royal administration was sufficiently developed across the land, so that
the co-dependent administration of king, queen and two archbishoprics encom-
passed the whole kingdom and a growing social structure made the settling of
legal cases in written form more necessary. Examination of Latin documents
mentioning the Pechenegs in Transdanubia indicates that the Pecheneg comi-
tatus existed until the end of the fourteenth century,25 but in most other places
the Pechenegs were disappearing rapidly. In the overwhelming majority of
documents the Pechenegs are mentioned only as the former inhabitants of a land
that the king has chosen to give away. Most of these documents date from after
the Mongol invasion, suggesting significant changes. The other major source for
Pecheneg history is local place names, created either from the Pecheneg name,
or their tribal names, or personal names known to have been used by Pechenegs.
From these place names, we know that Pechenegs were once present in these
areas in significantly larger numbers than the later documents indicate. Chroni-
cles and other sources mention the Pechenegs as auxiliary troops in Hungarian
campaigns abroad several times.26

23 Sarolta Tatár, “Az árpási besenyők gazdasági viszonyai” [The Economic Conditions of the
Pechenegs of Árpás] in Adalékok az adózás történetéhez [Notes on the History of Taxation]
TITE Könyvek 4 [Books of the Historical Society 4] (Budapest, 2014), pp. 65–79.
24 Sarolta Tatár “A Rábaközi besenyő ispánság szervezete és fennállása” [The Organization and
duration of the Pecheneg Comitatus of Rábaköz] in Utak és kereszteződések. Ünnepi tanul-
mányok M. Kiss Sándor tiszteletére [Roads and Crossroads. In Honor of Sándor M. Kiss], ed.
Frigyes Kahler and Barbara Bank (Budapest, 2013), pp. 33–42.
25 Tatár, “A Rábaközi.”
26 Györffy, A magyarság, pp. 123–69.
106 Sarolta Tatár

Albert I of Habsburg’s Campaigns in Hungary

By 1285, the members of the Kőszegi family had set themselves up as the main
feudal lords in the western regions of Transdanubia, where they were a continual
thorn in the side of the Hungarian king, Ladislaus IV, the German king, Rudolf I
(of Habsburg), and Rudolf’s eldest son, the duke of Austria and Styria, Albert I of
Habsburg. The Kőszegis owned several castles in this territory. The Kőszegi family
had originated from the Héder kindred, of German origin, and had climbed to the
top by controlling most castles within their kindred group, and being some of the
biggest landowners among the barons.27 Their belligerent provocations would cause
Albert (who had just gained full control over his two duchies in 1283) to attack
western Hungary.28 The Austrians and Styrians living by the frontier told Albert
that Hungarians should not be engaged as if they were French knights: rather, one
must adapt to their strategy of occasionally attacking and sometimes fleeing. In
1283, a campaign took place pitting the Austrians against Turkic auxiliary peoples,
leading to a combat that did not happen according to the rules of chivalry. Rather,
the Hungarians shot their arrows then retreated, always turning around to harass
the enemy. When Albert’s army thrust forward, the Hungarians avoided battle with
him. The Austrians sent an envoy to ask the Hungarians to stop shooting and face
battle like men, but the envoy was shot down too (Hungarian humor is a very old
thing). Albert’s army was forced to surrender after hours of this, and the army of
the Kőszegis took the soldiers’ possessions. Albert and Iván Kőszegi made peace.29
(The battle in question happened at an unknown location at an unknown date).

27 József Dénes, “Az Árpád-kori kisvárak kérdései. Vas, Sopron és Moson megye várai” [Ques-
tions Concerning the Minor Fortifications of the Árpádian Age. The Castles of Vas, Sopron and
Moson Counties], Vasi Szemle 54 (2000), p. 59.
28 Anonymous, “Chronicon Salisburgense,” in CFHH, 1:682 no. 1490.
29 Ottokar von Steier, “Oesterreichische Reimchronik,” in CFHH, 3:1829–41, no. 4146.
On Hungarian archers charging with “Cumanian” battle cries:
nu begunden zou gahen
die Unger allenthalben.
se schriren als Valben [=Cumanian]
und kamen rehte als si flugen.
ire bogen si zugen
und begunden die nutzen. (1833)
es wurde da mit in gestriten
nah den schwaebischen siten 
sie Tiutschen wurden umbezogen
vor und hinden hin und her,
do si alsus wurden beschutt
do wart der Tiutschen schade groz (1833–34)
mit der botschaft ein schutze 
zou graf Yban wart gesant....
wand er wart erschozzen. (1834)
so getan unere
daz man daz schiezen lieze
ez wart unritterlich. (1835)
 Auxiliary Peoples and Military Reform in Hungary 107

At the end of 1286, however, Ladislaus IV also started a new war against
the Kőszegi family, and took Ivan’s most important fortress, Kőszeg. One of
Ivan’s contingents crossed the Danube and took Pozsony, which the king took
back at the beginning of 1287. But by spring, the king had been defeated in a
battle along the banks of the river Zsitva, by the sons of Henrik of Kőszegi and
Roland of the Borsa kindred. Ladislaus IV called on the help of Albert, who
besieged Pozsony, and kept it until 1291. In 1288, active warfare between Albert
and Iván Kőszegi resumed, with Albert undertaking a sort of quick hit-and-run
incursion. The next spring (1289), Albert conducted a more methodical inva-
sion, which will be discussed in some detail below. He besieged Nagymarton
then took Majád, Sopron, Nyék, Kabold, Lánzsér, Rohonc, Szalónak, Pinkafő,
Németújvár, and Óvár by Moson.30 Ladislaus IV refused to help his Kőszegi
vassals. Albert moved to take the Kőszegi family seat of Kőszeg by autumn,
and conquered that too. After a pause in the action, Albert returned towards the
end of the year and took the fortress of Szentvid.31
Albert`s campaigns did not result in any lasting conquest of Hungarian terri-
tory. He seems to have pulled back with his army each time and returned most
or all of his conquests to the Hungarian king after each campaign. This means
that Albert and Ladislaus IV were collaborating with each other, since they must
have considered the Kőszegi warlords as a common enemy. Ladislaus IV was
a weak king, who could not have dismantled the Kőszegi autonomous region
by himself. So he gave Albert I free access to those parts of his kingdom, and
Albert took out the enemy for him. He possibly had to pay Albert I something
in return, although Albert I benefited from demolishing the Kőszegi’s power too.

Nomad Tactics Used Against the Austrians

The event we will concentrate on is Albert’s defeat by Ivan’s mounted archers
in 1285, as described by Ottokar von Steier (which is also briefly mentioned
in the Chronicon Salisburgense).32 I will analyze this combat in light of the
subsequent fighting in 1288–89. Ottokar von Steier does not mention where this
battle between Western knights and Kőszegi’s horse archers took place. Only
their tactics are recorded, and they are unmistakably nomadic.
The tactic of shoot-and-run, then the act of turning back to unexpectedly
encircle the pursuing army, was described multiple times in connection with
steppe peoples as disparate as the Huns, Avars, Hungarians and Mongols. A
Muslim source33 describes a battle taking place in 932 involving the Pechenegs

30 “Continuatio Vindobonensis,” in CFHH, 1:787–88 no. 1792.

31 Gyula Kristó, Az Árpád-kor háborúi (Budapest 1986), p. 150.
32 von Steier, “Reimschronik” in CFHH, 3:1829–41 no. 4146, Anonymous, “Chronicon” in CFHH,
1:682 no. 1490.
33 al-Masudi, “Meadows of Gold and Mines of Gems,” [Relevant passages only in Hungarian]
in A magyarok elődeiről és a honfoglalásról. Kortársak és krónikások híradásai [Reports
of Contemporaries and Chronicles about the Ancestors of the Magyars and the Peoples of
108 Sarolta Tatár

and Hungarians.34 This was during the Hungarian campaign against Byzantium, a
pillaging raid of the same kind as campaigns undertaken against Western Europe
in the same period. Byzantine and Muslim sources referred to Hungarians as
Turks.35 In 932 the Hungarians besieged a Byzantine “city” that was located
in the Bulgarian territories and which had an unsolved name spelled W.l.n.d.r.
in Arabic. Hearing this, the Emperor Romanos Lekapenos I sent a large army
to relieve it, including many Christian Arabs fighting with spears. Seeing this
large enemy, the Pecheneg “king” (baḡanag) asked to be given command of
the Hungarians’ battle tactics during the upcoming confrontation. The next day,
he took his mounted archers and placed them on both sides of the Hungarian
army, 1,000 men on each side. Then the Pechenegs began rotating around the
Byzantines, firing arrows, until the Byzantines lunged forward into the main
Hungarian army, which did not budge, sending the Byzantines fleeing.
What we see here is a version of the mobile tactics of the nomads that
combines the tactic of moving riders firing arrows and another type of tactic,
which involves an army not giving way to an attacking force. The nomad shoot-
and-move tactic is here used by the Pechenegs. It is also apparent that the
Muslim author has somewhat misunderstood the role of the Pecheneg “king”:
far from being the commander, he is only in charge of the auxiliary forces. Both
a Hungarian–Pecheneg alliance and Pecheneg auxiliary forces under Hungarian
leadership are plausible at this period, when the Hungarian ruler, Zolta, arranged
for the marriage of his son Taksony, the next ruler, to a lady of Pecheneg origin
(i.e. an alliance) and settled Pecheneg groups as border guards close to Austria:
this took place before 950, according to the Gesta Hungarorum.36 The Pech-
eneg settlements meant immigrant subjects in military service. If the Pechenegs
participated in this campaign in that role, then this fact proves that their groups
had already settled in Hungary before 932.

the Steppe] [hereafter MEH], ed. György Györffy (Budapest, 1958), transl. Károly Czeglédy,
pp. 64–67, and Mihály Kmoskó, Mohamedán írók a sztyeppe népeiről, Földrajzi irodalom vol.
I/2 [Muslim Sources on Steppe Nomadism, Geographic Literature I/2], Magyar Őstörténeti
Könyvtár 13 [Library of Early Hungarian History 13] (Budapest, 2000), pp.  144–45. Also see
Zimonyi, Muszlim források, p. 181.
34 There are four peoples mentioned in the source: b.ĝ.n.y, baĝgird, b.ĝ.nāk and nūk.r.da. However,
b.ĝ.n.y and b.ĝ.nāk are both variants of the name of the Pechenegs, and baĝgird (Bashkird) and
nūk.r.da (Onogundur) both mean the Hungarians. Al-Masudi used an Arabian and a Persian
source, hence the misunderstanding. See Peter B. Golden, “The People Nūkarda,” Archivum
Eurasiae Medii Aevi 1 (1975), pp. 21–35.
35 It was assumed earlier that this is one of the few written indications we have that some Hungar-
ians stayed behind after the main body of the people moved into the Carpathian Basin in 895–6:
cf. MEH, pp.  64–67 (transl. K. Czeglédy) and Kmoskó Mohamedán, pp.  144–45. Also see
Zimonyi, Muszlim források, p. 181. However, the name of the Greek city where the combatants
met was misspelled in the source as W.l.n.d.r. This means the Bulgarians, who were subjects
of the Greeks (HKÍF, p. 53, no. 132).
36 Anonymous, § 57 in CFHH, 1:255–6 no. 540; Tatár, “Pecheneg Legend”, pp. 317–36.
 Auxiliary Peoples and Military Reform in Hungary 109

Identifying Nomad Auxiliary Troops Used Against Albert I

The question is: in Ottokar von Steier’s description of Albert’s defeat, what was
the ethnicity of the troops using nomad tactics? He does not name them. The
various ethnic groups of Hungary float together as “Hungarians” in Western
sources. So we must look at the tactics used by Hungarian soldiers at the time
to determine it. This is where the question gets complicated: Hungarian tactics
are usually described in a universal manner in the sources of foreign enemies,
who had difficulty distinguishing between the various ethnicities among the
subjects of the Hungarian kings. B. Szabó has sifted through all the signifi-
cant sources concerning battles involving medieval Hungarians and argues that
the medieval Hungarian royal army retained many nomad traditions, particu-
larly the use of light cavalry archers. He also believes that as the Hungarian
kings received the service of immigrant knights from Western Europe and
were generally exposed to foreign tactics, the Hungarian army’s mastery of
nomad tactics declined. The Hungarian army, which had previously applied only
nomad military methods, became mixed in composition, with many segments
fighting according to various non-nomadic traditions. The backbone of the army
remained the Hungarian county soldiers until the reform after 1241.37 They were
drafted from subjects of various legal status and profession, who were listed as
soldier families in the counties and many of these soldiers were badly trained.
The ultimate composition of the Hungarian army varied from king to king and
even from event to event.
What seems definite is that even as late as the thirteenth century, Hungarian
kings welcomed the service of warriors of nomadic origins such as the Cumans
and nyögérs, because they added a type of military might and knowledge that,
inside Hungary, had paled over the centuries. They seem to have been the most
disciplined practitioners of nomadic shoot-and-run tactics.38
Ottokar von Steier makes an interesting comment about Ivan Kőszegi’s horse
archers: that “they shouted like the Cumans.” That is, they had battle cries that
reminded the Germans of nomad behavior. However, he does not write that they
were actual Cumans.39
No Cumans were ever settled so close to Hungary’s western borders. By
creating maps that incorporate the villages of Hungarian guardsmen, Pechenegs,
and other military service peoples it becomes clear that the dominant auxiliary
people of Eastern origin by the western frontier were the Pechenegs, even if we
take into account that most of their villages may never have been recorded in the
sources. Though much of their population was disappearing from the sources
by 1288, there were still a substantial number of them, if indications of Pech-
eneg landlordship in some villages can be believed. Thus, the Pechenegs had
completely disappeared from Barátfalu, Monóudvar and Féltorony in Moson

37 Szabó, “A honfoglalóktól.”
38 Györffy, A magyarság.
39 von Steier, “Reimchronik,” in CFHH, 3:1829–41 no. 4146.
110 Sarolta Tatár

County, which was given away by the king to the monastery of Heiligenkreuz
in 1203.40 In Vas County, we find approximately fifteen place names that can
be connected to the Pechenegs. Most of these are straightforward, since they
are village names made from variations of the Pecheneg ethnonym (Besenyő).
One village record mentions a landowner called Emmerich the son of Peter
the Pecheneg in 1324. Györffy believes that there cannot have been a major
Pecheneg population in this village anymore; if there were, he implies, then
“the Pecheneg” would not be a useful identifier. 41 I disagree with this judg-
ment: there are many examples from the Pecheneg Comitatus in Fejér County of
nicknames and family names made from Pecheneg-language names, without the
Comitatus going defunct until well into the fifteenth century.42 Maybe Peter the
Pecheneg lived in a mixed-population village: perhaps there were two or three
landowners named Peter, of whom only one was a Pecheneg. I conclude that the
archer horsemen of Ivan Kőszegi must have been Pechenegs.

The Strategy of Albert I

Since the military route taken by Albert I in 1288–89 led through and towards
the most important holdings of the Kőszegi family, namely in Vas County, we
will examine Albert’s strategy and compare it with our map of military villages.
Albert’s route is preserved in the continuation of the Annales Vindobonensis
(1267–1302):

Primo videlicet Mertinsdorf, Chervellenpurch, Rorpach, Paungarten, Walbramstorf,

Sant Margareten, Oedempurch, Nekendorf, Chobolstorf, Landeser, Traizzendorf,
Rekniez, Stainperge, Pilgreimstorf, Wilamstorf, Pinkevelde, Petersschachen, Albern-
dorf, Stegraifepach, Drei veste daz drin warten, Niclas tuern, Sleunz, Pertholsdorf,
Rumpolsdorf, Neubaden, Wergestorf, Barmdorf, Wardeschirchen, Zu den Sihuzen,
Zuchan ochsen, Awet, Yseneinpurch.43

In translation (with modern placenames):

First of all Nagymarton, Oroszvár, Fraknónádasd, Kismarton, Borbolya, Szentmar-

gitbánya (Majád), Sopron, Sopronnyék, Kabold, Lánzsér, Vámosderecske, Rohonc,
Répcekőhalom, Pörgölény, Villámos, Pinkafő, Peterschachen, Alber/Olberndorf,
Szentelek, Németújvár, Szalónak, Pertholsdorf, Rumpód/Bándolt, Bándolt, Velege,
Pözsöny, Hovárdost, Németlövő, Csejke, Pinkaóvár, Vasvár.

40 Györffy, A magyarság, p. 124.

41 Györffy, A magyarság, p. 129.
42 Gábor Hatházi, “Besenyők és kunok a Mezőföldön” [Pechenegs and Cumans in the Mezőföld
Region], in Zúduló sasok: Új honfoglalók – besenyők, kunok, jászok a középkori Alföldön és
a Mezőföldön, [Eagles Flying Low: New Landtakers – Pechenegs, Cumans and Jazygs on the
Medieval Hungarian Great Plain and the Mezőföld Region], eds. Péter Havassy et al. (Gyula,
1996), pp. 39–56.
43 CFHH, 1:787–88
 Auxiliary Peoples and Military Reform in Hungary 111

Nagymarton, Borbolya and Frakónádasd are located on the road from Wiener
Neustadt to Sopron.44 Kismarton and Majád are on the road45 that connects
the main road of Wiener Neustadt and Sopron and Sopron and Szombathely (a
minor village in Sopron County, not to be confused with the city).46 Sopronnyék
(Neckenmarkt) is on the road that connects Sopron with Kőszeg.47
Of these settlements, Peterschachen cannot be identified anymore, and
Pözsöny could not be located on a map.
Kabold lies on the road that branches off from the main road connecting
Sopron and Kőszeg, leading through Zsidány, Szentmárton, Veperd and Kabold
towards Wiender Neustadt, passing by the fortress of Fraknó.48
Oroszvár lies on the road from Hainburg to Óvár in Moson.49
Lánzsér is on the parallel road to the south that led from Kőszeg and Léka,
then Bunya, Vámosderecske and Lánzsér towards Wiender Neustadt.50
Rohonc lies on the road from Sopron to Graz, that branched off the road from
Szombathely-Pettau, leading through Rohonc and Hidegkút to Fürstenfeld.51
Répcekőhalom lay by the road that led from Szombathely to Wiender Neus-
tadt, which branched off from the road from Szombathely-Sopron and joined
the road from Léka-Wiender Neustadt by Derecske.52
The road of Pörgölény/Pergelény branched off the road from Kőszeg to Léka,
and led to Austria.53
Villámos is in the vicinity of Felsőlövő and lies between two roads, the one
leading from Szombathely through Vörösvár to Pinkafő to Hockart,54 and the
other leading from Kőszeg through Rohonc and Szalónak to Aschau.55 Pinkafő
lies at the end of the first road.
Szentelek and Olberndorf lie a little to the side of the road-system, south of
the road that leads from Csajta to Vasvörösvár, Felsőőr and Pinkafő to Austria.56
Németújvár lies on the road which led from Körmend to Fürstenfeld, going
through Hidegkút.57
Perchtolsdorf is south of Vienna.
Rumpód/Bándolt is on the road from Rohonc and Szalónak, through Tohony.58

44 Lajos Gláser, “A Dunántúl középkori úthálózata” [Medieval roads in Transdanubia] Századok

63–64 (1929–30), map and p. 148.
45 Ibid., p. 160, nr. 37.
46 Ibid., p. 160, nr. 36.
47 Ibid., map.
48 Ibid., p. 158, nr. 29.
49 Ibid., map.
50 Ibid., p. 158, nr. 27.
51 Ibid., p. 161, nr. 41.
52 Ibid., p. 163, nr. 50.
53 Ibid., p. 158, nr. 27.
54 Ibid., p. 164, nr. 53.
55 Ibid., p. 163, nr. 51.
56 Ibid., p. 164, nr. 53.
57 Ibid., p. 281, nr. 179.
58 Ibid., p. 163, nr. 51.
112 Sarolta Tatár

Velege is a little south of the same road. Hovárdos lies somewhere on the medi-
eval road between Németújvár and Rohonc. Pinkaóvár is also on this road.59
Németlövő and Csejke lie on the road that leads from Szombathely to
Rábort.60
Vasvár is the old county seat that lies at the crossroad of multiple roads.
Based on this record, we can reconstruct the route: it becomes apparent
that Albert divided his attacking army into two contingents that moved
simultaneously. The two contingents were meant to disable the two main
defenses that the Hungarian kingdom had in the northwest: the fortresses of
Sopron and Óvár near Moson. The first contingent came through Hainburg,
taking the minor fortification of Oroszvár, which was a preliminary fortress to
Óvár, but then made the surprising move of not advancing against Óvár to the
south, but rather taking the route north of Lake Fertő/Neusiedler See to join the
other contingent, with their route coming close to Szombathely and Kismarton
instead. The main contingent took the route from Vienna through Perchtolsdorf,
then Wiener Neustadt, Nagymarton and Sopron, where the two armies must
have met. Then, the unified army filed into Vas County, where most frontier
fortifications lay. Albert followed the main road that led from Sopron to Vasvár,
and took detours to attack fortifications by side-roads, conquering villages and
minor defenses along the way. He took such major castles as Kabold, Veperd,
Lánzsér, Léka, Pinkafő, Óvár, Németújvár and finally Vasvár, the county seat.
The map gives a simplified image of this route, omitting the long marches
that must have been spent on the main road and going back and forth on the
side roads.

Pecheneg Settlements along the Route

The route of the army came close to the Pecheneg settlements of Lajtakáta and
Királyudvar in Moson County, and Pecsenyéd in Sopron County lay close to where
the main army entered the country by Wiener Neustadt. Then no more Pecheneg
settlements were touched upon until the unified army attacked Vasvár County.
The road that the unified army next followed from Kőszeg to Vasvár is lined
with several Pecheneg villages, most of them located not directly on the road,
but not far from it.
Pese, Besenyő and Besenyőmajor are all located beneath Kőszeg; all have
names derived from the Pecheneg ethnonym. Then there are no Pecheneg settle-
ments for many kilometers, until Vasvár is approached. South of Vasvár lie
Oszka and Thomayfelde.61
On the side roads leading to the minor fortresses that Albert intended to
take, we find several more Pecheneg settlements: for example, on the road to

59 Ibid., p. 161, nr. 41.

60 Ibid., p. 165, nr. 54.
61 The Tomaj kindred descended from Tonuzoba, the Pecheneg chieftain who settled in Hungary
during the reign of Zolta, or latest Taksony, see Anonymous, Gesta, CFHH, 1:255–56 no. 540.
 Auxiliary Peoples and Military Reform in Hungary 113

Pinkafő fortress lies Tolmácsvölgye, with Tolmács being taken from the name
of a Pecheneg tribe.
In the vicinty of the road from Rohonc to Németújvár fortresses lie Toboj-
hegy, Beled and Tolmácsárka. Beled was a common name in the Osli clan,
which is believed to have been descended from the Pechenegs, and which had
property in Sopron.62 The toponym Toboj has recently been suggested to be of
Turkic origin, and since Pechenegs were the only Turkic population living in this
region, it is believed to be of Pecheneg origin.63 There is another Toboj on the
road from Németújvár to Körmend, and from there, Vasvár may be approached.
There are several more Pecheneg settlements located in Vasvár County, but
I have elected to ignore them when assessing this campaign, because they are
either too far away or because they lie by side roads.
When assessing the importance of this campaign, we must bear in mind that
we have almost no sources describing the life and status of Pechenegs in Vasvár
County. We have no means of learning which Pecheneg villages owed loyalty
to the Kőszegi family, but we may deduce that the Pecheneg villages closest
to Kőszegi property and their castles were among them. We do not know how
long most of these villages were inhabitated by Pechenegs nor when they forgot
their original language. Moreover, our principal source, Ottokar von Steier, does
not say exactly where the battle between Austrians and Pechenegs took place. It
may have been either in Moson, Sopron or Vasvár County.

Assessing Battle Tactics on Albert I’s Campaign

When comparing the success of various military methods in this campaign,
the following is evident: Albert I’s Western-type warriors were unprepared for
Pecheneg nomad tactics. They lost the battle in 1285. But on the other hand, the
Pechenegs were unable to stop the progress of the campaign through Western
Transdanubia. Albert’s specific military goal in 1288–89 was evidently not to
engage Hungarian forces in open combat, nor to gain lasting territorial control
of the area he invaded. His goal seems to have been to take, and possibly pull
down sections of, the fortifications which gave the Kőszegi family a foundation
for their power. It was these fortresses that allowed the Kőszegi family to defy
both Albert and the Hungarian king, giving the Kőszegis ample opportunity to
keep their private armies safe, and providing a safe haven to retreat to. This
strategy must have been based on an agreement with the Hungarian king, since
he did not move to evict Albert. Instead, he tolerated his military presence in
Hungarian territory, and Albert moved his forces out of this foreign country
immediately after he had accomplished his goal.
Once Albert entered a siege situation, the strategic advantage fell immediately

62 Tatár, “Pecheneg Legend,” pp. 11–33.

63 Gábor Kiss, Endre Tóth, and Balázs Zágorhidi Czigány, Savaria – Szombarhely története. A
város alapításától 1526-ig [History of Savaria – Szombathely from the Beginning until 1526]
(Szombathely, 1998), p. 118.
114 Sarolta Tatár

to him. Though we do not have any descriptions of Albert’s sieges against the
Kőszegi family, he seems to have taken every fortress he intended to, as his
conquests lie like beads on strings along the main path and its side roads. These
fortifications may have been defended by Pecheneg auxiliary forces as well, but
the main garrison forces were almost certainly composed of ethnic Hungarians.
It has been recently suggested that the royal fortress of Szombathely was
defended by (partly) Pecheneg troops, based on placenames of possibly
Turkic origin in its vicinity. Szombathely must originally have been built
as a royal fortress, and the Pechenegs were most likely settled down in its
vicinity in the tenth to eleventh centuries.64 This indicates an early, if not
original, Pecheneg presence.
It would be beneficial for Hungarian archaeologists to reassess our knowl-
edge of these fortresses and what can be deduced about their age and periodi-
zation based on modern research data. For now, it is sufficient to note that the
accentuation of fortification as a frontier defense, and the private ownership of
many fortresses, began in Hungary after the Mongol invasion in 1241–42, barely
forty-six years before Albert’s campaign. So in 1288, the Hungarian nation had
already renovated many older fortifications and were building an ever-growing
number of new ones. Many of these fortresses had not been tested in strong
sieges yet. Hungarian troops may still have been adjusting to the problems of
fortress siege and defence, as many new troops had to be trained and maintained
for the manning of new, private fortifications.
For all the Kőszegi family’s apparent military might, based on their Pecheneg
and Hungarian troops, and their large number of fortresses and castles, their
defense fell short when it came to Albert’s experienced siege engineers and
Western-type troops.
The Pechenegs were only effective foes when they met the Austrians on
flat ground, and their inability to halt the decisive victory of foreign troops (as
evidenced by Albert’s conquest of many fortresses in 1289) indicates that while
they maintained their nomadic strategic and tactical traditions, their numbers
were no longer sufficient to play a decisive role in military action. The Kőszegi
family may still have won a battle or two, but they lost the war.

Conclusion
Ottokar von Steier’s description of a battle between Western knights and foreign
troops fighting using a foreign tactic with a strange battlecry may be the last
recorded evidence we have of Pecheneg social organization in this region.
The introduction of modern fortification systems reduced the effectiveness of
the nomads’ traditional strategies and tactics. This influenced the introduction
of new siege engines, new types of troops, new training, and new weaponry
and armor.

64 Ibid.
 Auxiliary Peoples and Military Reform in Hungary 115

The full extent of this military reform cannot be summarized here. But this
campaign by Albert demonstrates what social and military developments were
making the Pechenegs’ traditional tactics obsolete, and this eventually led to the
dismantling of their social organization. They were destined to be assimilated
by the majority of ethnic Hungarians.