"The Mongols were over rated"

[mongers]

Because their greater mobility gives them much more of an opportunity to decide where the battle takes place. 

The English can keep hoping from forest to forest, narrow lane to hedged countryside.

[The Brain]

I like to assume an English army invading Mongolia.

[mongers]

I like to assume an English army invading Mongolia.

Which maybe one of the few places on this planet an English./British army hasn't fought. 

[Razgovory]

It would seem to me the biggest problem for Mongols in Western Europe would not be longbows, but castles.  Private castles were everywhere in the period and warfare at the time revolved around sieges rather then pitched battles.  Each siege took a lot of guys, and a lot of time.
  Something the Mongols wouldn't have much of.  The private castles arose from poor organization rather then good, and this might be what would defeat the Mongols.

EDIT:  I do not care for the new boards formatting.  I'm having quite a bit of difficulty with it.

The Mongols did quite well at taking walled cities, I believe. I'm pretty sure they had plenty of experience besieging castles too.

Castles can hold out longer then cities.  Castles only hold a small group of men all of them are well armed and trained.  Assaulting them is the only quick way to take the castle and that leads
to lots of casualties.  And unfortunately for the Mongols there were a lot of castles.  If the Mongols bypass the castles, the soldiers inside would ride out and harass the mongol army and
it's foragers.

[The Larch]

Well obviously if the English had tons of Longbowmen in a heavily fortified position and the Mongols launced a series of suicidal frontal assaults they might win but the Mongols would never do that.

Really this seems like an absurd question.  The Mongols would win easily.  I mean how many 10,000 man armies could 13th century England field?

Well, the mongols were never tested against an organized Western army like the one fielded by Richard the Lionheart. That, apparently, is the crux of the argument.

By that standard every single European army was disorganized, and Richard the Lionheart wasn't a particulary good commander anyway.

[Razgovory]

Because their greater mobility gives them much more of an opportunity to decide where the battle takes place. 

The English can keep hoping from forest to forest, narrow lane to hedged countryside.

The problem is that the Mongols don't really know where they are going.

[Valmy]

By that standard every single European army was disorganized, and Richard the Lionheart wasn't a particulary good commander anyway.

Huh?  Richard was a great commander.  I mean to the extent there were great commanders in the 12th century.

[Viking]

It would seem to me the biggest problem for Mongols in Western Europe would not be longbows, but castles.  Private castles were everywhere in the period and warfare at the time revolved around sieges rather then pitched battles.  Each siege took a lot of guys, and a lot of time.
  Something the Mongols wouldn't have much of.  The private castles arose from poor organization rather then good, and this might be what would defeat the Mongols.

EDIT:  I do not care for the new boards formatting.  I'm having quite a bit of difficulty with it.

The Mongols did quite well at taking walled cities, I believe. I'm pretty sure they had plenty of experience besieging castles too.

A Walled city is a juicy targe worth taking the fall of which end resistance. A castle is a place where if you really really need to take it you'll have to trade 200 or your own men for 20 of the enemy for no gain. A Castle is also a risky proposition for a Mongol style army. The city is surrounded and the enemy army is hiding inside it, the castle is surrounded, but the enemy army is deep inland behind five more castles.

Taking castles is just too hard and takes too long and is not worth it. The English had realized this against France and the HYW degenerated into a series of Chevaucheé

[Valmy]

Taking castles is just too hard and takes too long and is not worth it. The English had realized this against France and the HYW degenerated into a series of Chevaucheé

And that is pretty much what the Mongols would have done as well.

[Razgovory]

Taking castles is just too hard and takes too long and is not worth it. The English had realized this against France and the HYW degenerated into a series of Chevaucheé

And that is pretty much what the Mongols would have done as well.

If I recall, the English lost that war as well.  So that doesn't seem to be a winning strategy.  You weaken your enemy but you don't gain any territory and you leave your army open to being
destroyed in detail.  I believe the Mongols and their successors tried this strategy in Eastern Europe for a long time with mixed results.

[Valmy]

I believe the Mongols and their successors tried this strategy in Eastern Europe for a long time with mixed results.

The Golden Horde?  They never intended to conquer anybody just to exact tribute IIRC.

[DGuller]

Taking castles is just too hard and takes too long and is not worth it. The English had realized this against France and the HYW degenerated into a series of Chevaucheé

And that is pretty much what the Mongols would have done as well.

Would Mongols really stoop to slaughtering civilian population outside of castles?

[Valmy]

Would Mongols really stoop to slaughtering civilian population outside of castles?

Of course not

[Viking]

Taking castles is just too hard and takes too long and is not worth it. The English had realized this against France and the HYW degenerated into a series of Chevaucheé

And that is pretty much what the Mongols would have done as well.

Would Mongols really stoop to slaughtering civilian population outside of castles?

Would the Angevins rise to caring if the peasants got slaughtered?

[Richard Hakluyt]

I think that Jake's friend may be muddling up the rather good English armies of c.1350 with the more mundane forces of 1200 

The problem with our medieval wars with the French is that by the time the English had a clear military advantage our king had ceased to be a Frenchman, at which point it becomes 4m Englishmen vs 18m French; no doubt Dr Johnson would reckon that gave us the advantage but IMO it doomed us to failure as soon as the French got their act together.