- Dec 2011
Very true, Western Europe was, far, far more well-fortified than Eastern Europe. If anything Eastern Europe military resembles that of the east than it does of the West at these times; even to the tactics as well as the very arms & armor they had. Western Europe was a bit of a different animal all together.But Central Europe was far more well fortified than Eastern Europe, where they were undeniably having trouble with the sieges. And also there is the problem of the steppe running out. That they could have called upon a coalition of European allies is speculation.
Not very true, by the late 12th century many castles in Western Europe were built in stone. In fact I had a huge list of Castles upon castles in Western Europe all built before the 14th century. Hell, the most impressive castles in the Middle East were built by the Europeans. The Crusader Castle Krak des Chevaliers was said to be the most impressive fortification built in the world at the time; European castles were marvels of military engineering.As stated before Central European fortifications were mostly mottes and baileys, albeit at this time they were undergoing the transition from wood to stone. The Mongols had seen far worse. Cental Europe was also undergoing a lot of infighting, with the Holy Roman Empire waging war against the Pope and the Chrisitians waging war against the Lithuainians.
We are talking about a chain of such fornications that was concentrated in such a small aria. I had a fire that lived in Germany and he says he remembers well on how they are big castles that are in site from each other. Germany alone had more fortifications than most if not all of Eastern Europe combined.
As said here: "The cities of Germany are absolutely free, they own but little country around them, and they yield obedience to the emperor when it suits them, nor do they fear this or any other power they may have near them, because they are fortified in such a way that everyone thinks the taking of them by assault would be tedious and difficult, seeing they have proper ditches and walls, they have sufficient artillery, and they always keep in public depots enough for one year's eating, drinking, and firing. And beyond this, to keep the people quiet and without loss to the state, they always have the means of giving work to the community in those labours that are the life and strength of the city, and on the pursuit of which the people are supported; they also hold military exercises in repute, and moreover have many ordinances to uphold them." --The Prince (Annotated) By Niccolò Machiavelli
Well that is the thing, there is a lot to take into account. Vietnamese had very closed terrain just like Western Europe, not so good for Steppe tactics.This OP is a bit silly. Considering that the Vietnamese and Mamelukes have absolutely zero in common, it is unlikely their methods of fighting the Mongols is the same and the fact that both may have had victories over the Mongols has nothing to do with them being Asian.
It seems like what the OP is really asking is why the eastern Europeans of the time had such a hard time of it.