>>17835337
I mean if that's what you want to believe sure. But nobody as far as I know from his time ever said he was lying about that particular report. Plus it has been documented on the other side of the planet...
>I guess that makes us in agreement that at numerical parity or even at a slight advantage the Mongols can't invade.
Yes I suppose but I only believe this to be the case for places far from their homelands. Still though they were a massive problem even in Hungary with at most 1/4th of the population dying because of their attacks and the aftermath. Of course most of them were not inside powerful fortifications like that and so it is kind of irrelevant to the point being made.
>I'm not sure why you think a castle is less defended than a walled city
Well cities have bigger walls and you have a lot more flexibility with positioning your bowmen for example. Their fault is that they weren't really always built entirely of stone, but there are exceptions.
>Cities also have more mouths to feed. The crown jewel of Mongol siege warfare that you linked ended after months of starvation, whereas a stocked European castle could last way longer than that.
Yes but they could theoretically store a lot more food too, right? Also about that, Mongols didn't really even try that hard. I suppose the local delicacy was just as easily found outside of the gates so they didn't have to invest so much effort