Europe and asia

"Europeans did fight against the samurai--in the 16th century.  The Spanish in the Philippines had to deal with Sino-Japanese pirates (wako) often, during the 1570s and 1580s.  The fact that the Spanish had firearms is a moot point, because the wako had them too!  The fighting involved a mixture of missile weapons (arquebuses and bows) and melee weapons (polearms and swords). 

And the Spanish won."

This battle is not a good indication in anyway, Wo kou pirates are small in number and they lack cavalry units, Qi Ji guan of Ming also defeated them pretty easily so there is nothing surprising.

"Well, I don't know if historical Mongols--like Prince Batu--would have agreed with your assessment there.  Batu became pretty nervous when dealing with the Hungarian knights at HTH range at the Battle of Mohi,  before Subotai came up.

And, they must have had at least some appreciation for European military prowess, as they hired knights and crossbowmen from time to time.  In fact, the unpleasant Mongol experience with Italian mercenary crossbowmen was very manifest at the siege of Sz�kesfeh�rv�r (Stuhlweissenburg), which the Mongols abandoned after a spirited defense by the Italians.  Even Friar Carpini commented that the Mongols "feared" the crossbow."

Most of the crossbowmen that mongols employed are Chinese not Europeans. The Song crossbowmen had better trigger mechanism design and training along with formation. The various cities of Jin and Song held much larger mongol armies for a much long time inflicting heavy casualties on them. Europe is the furthest conquest of the mongols, yet it was still conquered with such little troops and relative ease on the battle field.

I concur with David on the well-equipped part.  In fact, these Wakos invaded Korea on numerous occassions.  they left some of their equipments either because they died with it during battle or something...and they reveal heavy samurai shields and armors, indicating that these pirates were in fact elite samurai warriors.

Gubukjanggoon, if you still don't believe me, try search a kbs documentary with the title: wegu were elite samurai warriors? or something like that

You forgot the Portuguese. In the early sixteen hundreds, a man named Andr� Pessoa managed to kill a few samurais with his bare hands. And they gained many victories in the east in spite of being incredibly outnumbered.

Anyhoo, this whole question is absurd. There are several asian cultures, and there are several European cultures, each with a different way to fight.

As for the Mongols in Europe, Tobodai, how can you say it was easier for them there than anywhere else? Let's face it, for the Mongols most adversaries were equally easy to defeat. Liegnitz is probably nothing compared to the battles held in the middle east or central Asia (not only that, but I read somewhere that Bohemians actually put up a stiff resistence to the Mongols; don't know if that's true though) Or are you just unnerved by what's his face's rash comments? You're right to feel that way, but please, calm down.

Tobodai,

I'm glad you brought this up, because I'm really weary of reading about all these baseless claims that the Mongols always outnumbered their opponents--if anything, as you indicated, the reverse was usually true.

Well, I don't know if historical Mongols--like Prince Batu--would have agreed with your assessment there.  Batu became pretty nervous when dealing with the Hungarian knights at HTH range at the Battle of Mohi,  before Subotai came up.

And, they must have had at least some appreciation for European military prowess, as they hired knights and crossbowmen from time to time.  In fact, the unpleasant Mongol experience with Italian mercenary crossbowmen was very manifest at the siege of Sz�kesfeh�rv�r (Stuhlweissenburg), which the Mongols abandoned after a spirited defense by the Italians.  Even Friar Carpini commented that the Mongols "feared" the crossbow.

Peace,

David Black Mastro

TSTH,

Europeans did fight against the samurai--in the 16th century.  The Spanish in the Philippines had to deal with Sino-Japanese pirates (wako) often, during the 1570s and 1580s.  The fact that the Spanish had firearms is a moot point, because the wako had them too!  The fighting involved a mixture of missile weapons (arquebuses and bows) and melee weapons (polearms and swords). 

And the Spanish won.

To say European is stronger than Asian is an absolute nonsense and racist, but if you still keep trying to say European is stronger than Asian then please provide proof and evidence or else what ever you say is just purely bullcrap.

Then, by your logic, you have also made a "racist" comment (below):

This had already proven that Asian are much better and stronger in military than European(I'm not trying to prove whose culture is better).

No martial culture is inherently superior to any other, though some have certainly been more successful than others, during various time periods.

Peace,

David Black Mastro

The Mongols were usually very outnumbered, they probably were in Europe too, and thier EUropean campaign was their most sucessful ever, the Europeans were easier to beat then most other foes at that time.

Also what about Russia in the Russo-Japanese war, they lost bad to an Asian power.

I think when someone just discounts a whole social group that means they dont know anything about it.  Its easy to be pro-western if that the only history you know... and it clearly is this this persons case as heonly believes the highly inflated and unlikely stats given my Europeans at the time of Leignitz.

They did not make excusses, the numbers were likely to be real. The mongols never had a great number disadvantage like the spanish did in mexico. The mongol army was larger than any european countries' and they are excellent fighters so they have achieve what they have. But they although suffered heavy losses in europe that they could not afford so they withdrew. Europe was not as feeble and pathetic as some people says, it's more than capable to hold back the mongols.