Defenders vs Invaders Casualties

Do invading armies suffer more casualties than defenders ?

Didn't find it in the article but is "scorched earth" a possible reason? I am guessing not as the article would have said so. And there were not large organized armies during that time...

An army. It was an advantage at times.

That’s the strategy that has been employed by armies for a long time - see Vietnam, the WW2 eastern front and numerous other conflicts. But instead of equipment versus equipment it was lots of ill trained farmers versus relatively few well trained soldiers.

While that applies to World War II it seems like medieval castles or WWI trenches were pretty effective.

The strongest military on Earth couldn't defeat a bunch of illiterate people with 40 year old guns in terrain they knew well.

Before they had a huge, modernized army that would easily win a land battle for Europe.

The opposing forces in the US Civil War sustained large armies in the field for years even before widespread industrialized agriculture. In some ways it was a preview of WW1, showing the difficulty of breaking through defensive positions.

It depends on the location and time. In the great English victories of the Hundred Years War many ordinary soldiers were killed whereas the French nobility were often spared. It did not hurt that the latter could pay fat ransoms, of course.

No, we should clearly go back to the days of low tech seige warfare, when battles were won by slowly starving people until they gave up.