Why can't medieval europeans conquer each other? The way

>>3320002
>Its like Euronigs fight for the sake of fighting each other.

Yes... and?

Truth is that almost all medieval wars were glorified inheritance conflicts rather than wars of pure conquest. They'd fight for a while and then conclude the war with a treaty because that is how Christians treated each other most of the time.

Castles. Lots of castles. Castles all over the place. It could take months or years to capture one, that is assuming there isn't another army nearby that can stop you.

Romans and Greeks would capture a city and control a region, in medieval europe you'd need to capture a dozen forts to hold that same region. Decentralised and fortified areas are hard to conquer.

>>3320002
The Church.

>>3320002
Hundreds of lesser kingdoms were wiped off the map, I don't get this question.

>>3320002
Because most medieval Euronig wars were over inheritance and titles. They're basically leadership changes as opposed to some grand conquest where the conqueror moves his people & culture into a place.

Even the Norman Invasion of England was an inheritance shitfight. It just so happened that shitloads of Normans decided to make England their home.

File: europe_1100_ad.jpg (240KB, 936x758px) Image search: [Google]

240KB, 936x758px

>>3320002
The other great Medieval conquest was the Magyar conquest of the Carpathian Basin.

Bunch of steppenigs carved a huge piece of Carpathia for themselves, although they only unified in the 1000s.