: In 1221, Genghiz, Great Khan of the Mongols, ordered an armed reconnaissance expedition into Russia commanded by Subodei Bahadur and Jebei Noyon 'The Arrow'. The consequences for the history of Europe were incalculable. The decisive Mongol victory at Kalka River opened up vast regions of Russia and Eastern Europe to Mongol conquest. Genghiz ordered his victorious army to return eastwards, delaying the final cataclysm by a few years. Genghiz died in 1227, but within 10 years his son Ogedei ordered a return to Russia to complete the conquest. This title details the events of the dramatic Kalka River campaign. In 1221, Genghiz, Great Khan of the Mongols, ordered an armed reconnaissance expedition into Russia commanded by Subodei Bahadur and Jebei Noyon 'The Arrow'. The consequences for the history of Europe were incalculable. The decisive Mongol victory at Kalka River, opened up vast regions of Russia and Eastern Europe to Mongol conquest. Genghiz ordered his victorious army to return eastwards, delaying the final cataclysm by a few years. Genghiz died in 1227, but within 10 years his son Ogedei ordered a return to Russia to complete the conquest. This title details the events of the dramatic Kalka River campaign.
Not one of Osprey's best Campaign books, which put it into merely 'quite good' territory. Since no one knows exactly where the battle took place, this is just an interpretation of what's known, but a fairly solid one. In some ways, the book just felt more superficial than normal for a Campaign book (not sure why), but it does provide a nice peek into the contentious nature of Russian politics of the time.
While the description of battle and different historical artefacts related to it is ok, the misuse of geographical names, calling protoslavic Kyivan Rus (or Kievan Rus) with a general word “Russia”, and following it up with terms like “Russian army”, “Russian lands”, “Russian people” even when talking about lands as far west as areas around Kyiv or even as far west as Galicia and having zero regard towards trying to explain the potential confusion taking into account modern geopolitics and general political geography etc. is in the best case scenario misleading in a wider historical meaning. By the way adding article “the” to Ukraine when referring to the modern country and its terrotory (the publication is from XXI century, mind you) makes me generally wonder about the attention to sensitive detail there.
Was quite entertaining, the only thing what I missed is the battle and discussing also the sources regarding the battle and the context. Also, there was no questionmark regarding the armies and how big they were. The aftermath of the battle is also short.