Why did Europeans never develop horse archery? They got raped by horse archers again and again...

Continued.

Forgot to say this, but Europeans did grasp the idea and made it even better. Instead of bow riding which required much more skill, they used different mounted ranged tactics. They did mounted crossbows(low level skill) and mounted javelineers (higher level). This is why jinetes are so popular.

We developed something better, horse gunnery.

>horse archers meme
*blocks your path*

>Where
>stupid
OP

Doesn't help a lot when they just plunder the land and rape/enslave/kill your entire population while you hide behind walls.

Note than Hungarians were nomadic horse archers, but when they settled in Europe they fully changed their military in little more than a century and adapted the European way of warfare. This also proves that horse archery is simply not as valuable to a classic European kingdom. It's complicated and doesn't really offer much more advantages.

Did help them a lot when the Mongols invaded and raped them at Mohi.

>Why did Europeans never develop horse archery?
They did.
Eastern Europe is Eastern Europe.
Western Europe phased out Horse Archers with the advent of forts. The Celts, Latins, and eventually Germanics began to favor heavy inf supported by heavy cav.
Heavy inf, 'spam' archers and heavy cav became the name of the game when fortified positions became widespread. The European Steppe did retain some of these nomadic fighting styles though, one might look at Hungry or the Ukraine, Russia too.
>They got raped by horse archers again and again.
Actually it was just Hungary, Ukraine, and Russia (modern geographic areas representing their respective historical affiliates).
The Steppe fighters were the ones who got btfo by other Steppe fighters.
The only other time was when the Huns drove the subhumans into Roman Gaul and the Romans gave them jobs Romans didn't want to do.
Otherwise Europe didn't really suffer any serious blows from Steppe peoples.
>probably for more geographic and architectural tactical reasons rather than military
This.
European armies were usually young to middle aged men, most often Nobles or folks with enough money to buy weapons or outfit other young men to go and fight in their stead.
Horse Archers on the Steppe wasn't a profession, it wasn't a type of soldier to them, it was THE Soldier, THE 'Citizen' THE Blacksmith, THE Noble, THE horse breeder, THE tribal elder, THE Young boys, sometimes the women would fight as well.
It was literally a gamble of their entire society, whereas Europeans could field men indefinitely if an army was lost (in most cases, levies could be raised and families were large).
Also European farmers were stronger and less skilled (obviously) in horse riding as well as firing a bow from horse back.
The people of Finrand were more wire-y, much more suited to horse archery than fighting hand to hand.

>blacks your path
>tiny castles
kek

>Otherwise Europe didn't really suffer any serious blows from Steppe peoples.
Indo-Europeans.

There's a reason why later Mongols were repeadetly defeated there when they started building Stronk Stone Castles.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Hodów

then the winter comes and you have stores and they only have the shit they destroyed and they don't even know how to plow lmao

>mohi
>rape
The same mohi where the mongols suffered heavy losses and nearly retreated?
Sure.

>horse archers
They'd utterly abandoned horse archery by that time, and had not really modernized. They instead had a LOT of fairly shit light cavalry and a very few crossbowmen.

Hungary updated their armies with more crossbows and a LOT more armor, and foud the nongols less than intimidating during future invasions. They fucking stomped them in open field battles, which were the single thing Europeans were worst at.