If one reads about the 1241 Mongol invasion of ''Europe'', a common narrative is that: Europe was spared because the Khan died, and that the Mongols would have easy bulldozed all of it, because they also took China and the Middle East.

But how true is this?

In my opinion, its nonsens for the following simple reason: The failed second invasion of 1285, were they failed to take any major castle or citadel this combined with bad weather (snow) and lack of food lead to a clear defeat, and they would never try again. (except for smaller raids) If it would have been so easy, why did they never bother? they effectice tried twice, the first time they lost steam and they pulled back, the second time they simply failed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Mongol_invasion_of_Hungary

Can i thus conclude the Mongols were simply not good enough at siege warfare? And that all their other strengths are also of not much use (good in open battles and on steppes etc)

Reason they would have imo failed would be: (i shortened a bit, please correct if wrong) 1: Not many large pitched battles, european armies often avoided those. 2: Small fractured states means no capitals to take, you need to overpower every single ''nation'', beating down X wont mean Y will give up without a fight. 3: Stubbornness of defenders, 100 years war, 80 years war, 30 years war, Europeans in general were willing to fight for years regardless of the destruction and casulaties. Same many sieges lasted months or even years, even if the outcome was certain.

Also, the only way to win is to take those castles and fortresses, you cant avoid them see: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1l68g8/why_siege_a_castle_during_medieval_warfare/?

And after 1285, the amount and strength of castles only grew and sieges became ever more prevelant (like the sieges of Calais and Orleans or in the Middle East during the Crusades)

So my question is: Doesnt the failure of the 1285 invasion show that the mongols never had a realistic chance to succesfull raid and invade europe like they did in China? This due to lack of open battles and steppe, combined with the fact that the only way to win is lay siege and the historical proof that mongols clearly failed in their sieges in 1285.

Or am i missing something crucial?

Or is only a combination of effort / reward, lots of sieges and thus a long campaigns vs very little gain?

ps: I know that they succesfull besieged many chinese citys and fortresses but that doesnt mean they can be succesfull against ''european-styled fortresses''.