Could the Mongols have destroyed Khwarazmia or the Abbasids if they didnt have Chinese siege engineers? Why didnt those same engineers help at Europe?
>>18434971>Could the Mongols have destroyed KhwarazmiaYes, the Khwarezmians were the same steppeniggers as they were and met them in open battle repetitively.>or the Abbasids if they didnt have Chinese siege engineers?Big no.>Why didnt those same engineers help at Europe?Chang (and Persian) engineers were present in the 1st Mong invasion of Hungary. In the 2nd one they were not there at all with the Mongol Empire broken up and all the Golden Horde had to work with are dumb slavs.
>>18435041So if the chink engineers were present, could the mongols have taken eastern Europe?
>>18434971China had more cities than castles. Europe had more castles than cities.Chinese engineers were very good at taking cities. But were poorly equipped to handle castles.One Korean castle held out for a decade.Persia was also mostly cities with heavy fortifications but rarely castles.
>>18435107But couldnt the mongols just bypass the castles? And even if not, castles are just more walls. Chinese sappers can take down ultra thick city walls of China just fine. The Mongols would also have had Persian sappers with them.
>>18435560Real life isn’t a video game
>>18434971> Why didnt those same engineers help at Europe?you know Chingis was in good terms with the Pope and didn´t even thought to invade Europe right?
>>18435810Youre a retard. Walls are same everywhere. If you collapse the foundation it goes down.
>>18435560Some castles were built at river crossing, bridges or mountain passes and thus bypassing them would be impractical if not impossible. Even if you could bypass them, what for? To find another castle? Then what, bypass that one as well? Europe had tens of thousands of castles during this period, and they built them because they worked. If you bypass a castle then you leave your rear exposed, your supply trains will be massacred by the castle garrisons and you run the risk of being encircled. Saying taking a castle is no more difficult than taking a city because it's just more walls is like saying climbing Mount Everest is no harder than climbing up on your garage because it's "just more altitude."
>>18436781Mongol hordes lived off the land and were more than capable of taking every single castle with chinese sappers
>>18436781>supply trains>mongolscmon now
>>18434971Euros just built fuckloads of castles after the initial mongol rape. That’s the difference between whitey and browns - he can pivot to changing circumstances, rather than decay in backwards stasis.
>>18437194>>18437375Mongols absolutely had supply trains retards, living off the land was an excellent bonus but they still needed to move resources long distances, especially in the forests of Europe. Hell, even if they didn't, what's the point of even "occupying" the land if it's still full of enemy castles and you cant send trade caravans or move wealth around without massive security forces protecting them 24/7.
>>18437194They famously struggled to take castles during the second invasion of Hungary. IIRC they couldn't take a single one and suffered pretty bad casualties when they tried.>>18437375They used supply trains. Not all the time, but they used them, and you especially need them if you're conducting sieges.
>>18435063In the first Mongol invasion of Eastern Europe they wouldn't have been needed. Castles and towns were mostly constructed of wood so far east. The Mongols still failed strategically. After the reforms of Bela, the Chinese engineers would have been of more use but the second invasion was more brief because the western Slavs and Hungarians had largely westernized in terms of cavalry, ranged weapons and fortifications. But I'm under the impression that Mongol leadership was not nearly as good at this point as well.
