Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

TheGreatOneSea t1_j17byj4 wrote

A lot of this is going to depend on where exactly you are, mind:

  1. The Teutonic Knights, for example, spent most of their time fighting low-level skirmishes with pagans, often in winter, and the rest of their time sieging down forts whenever they had Crusaders come to help.

  2. The Byzantines, by contrast, preferred to build bases of supply for their armies, and gradually moved them when planning an attack to reduce the logistical strain, and usually relied mostly on locals to defend territory.

  3. The Hungarians (Pre-Mongol) were usually an exception, preferring to seek pitched battle against invading nomads, with little in the way of stone fortifications outside their western border. Against the Mongols, this proved a disaster.

  4. While on topic, the Mongols preferred attacking the exposed population instead of sieging western stone forts (built tall to be difficult to storm, though this also made them far more vulnerable to later cannon than the earth-packed Chinese walls,) and the lack of wealth they got attacking Hungary this way was a big factor in why they didn't bother going further west.

  5. The English preferred raiding the French over sieges, but this meant that anything lost to France was that much more difficult to take back. In many ways, the English had no choice but to do this, as gathering enough ships to move troops was very difficult without a royal navy.