Comments by "Archangel17" (@MDP1702) on "Metatron" channel.

@leedavis7508 Which exactly supports his point: a lot more wall to protect, where castles try to limit the necessary defenders anywhere they can, a city has to put walls accross a large area. Furthermore a castle houses as many or more soldiers as civilians during a siege, the opposite of a city.
3
@anotherhistoryenthusiast5874 Hungary still had a lot of light troops though, more than western European armies. Basically Hungary was in between the two which was the worst place to be when the mongols attacked. Their armies didn't had enough heavy troops to make a real difference, and their light/medium troops were no match for the mongols.
2
Useless.
2
That is one possible reason. Other possibilities also exist. For example a historian that had access to original mongol records wrote that the reason was a cuman rebellion and that Batu didn't knew about Ogeidei's death at the time. It is very likely though that his death was one of the reasons they didn't try to invade and conquer Hungary soon after again.
1
@tomjongman4797 I think that was his point.
1
Even then it would be useless. Well into the gun age, horse archers would have been the dominant horse missile unit, guns just can't be easily reloaded on horseback and are even less accurate. The main usage for guns on horseback would be things like dragoons: fast mobility, but engaging primarily on foot. The thing is, horse archers lose their effectiveness against gunwielding infantry due to the loss in range advantage, the usually higher discipline among the ranks and the shock value to the horses of the guns firing. So usefull strategically, but tactically on the battlefield? Not so much, I'd prefer horse archers over horse gunners and dragoons would be the optimal mix. (When talking about mixing missile and horses)
1
@farmdude2020 The mongols tried going more south into indo-china where there was more jungle terrain. Let's just say it didn't go as well as their other conquests.
1
Arda Russia is a lot of plains, at least where the mongols conquered. The forested regions are more to the north, where they established tributaries. The main thing is that the mongols where less effective outside of plains, though obviously not completely useless either. Overall Europe just has very diverse terrains on a small surface: mountains, forests, plains, marches, hills, ... This could be rather usefull for Europeans if it had ever come to a large scale war.
1
@Al Ponce You can win and still suffer a lot of losses. So essentially paying tribute for sometime might be prefered. Especially if you can use the gained time to prepare for a future invasion and lower the losses.
1
@sneksnekitsasnek yeah, because Vietnam prefered to accept tributary status rather than a prolonged war, however the mongols suffered terribly in those conflicts (estimates are about 140k mongol troops death or captured troops in the second and third invasions) and they always needed large armies of 80-100k+ Sometimes tributary status is prefered even if you can win, it also for example depends on the cost of winning (destruction, lives lost, ...) vs tributary status (tribute, loss of sovereignty, ...)
1