"The Mongols were over rated"

[Ed Anger]

I'd like to fire your colleague.

[Valmy]

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.

Um the Battle of Legnica?

[Jacob]

I'd like to fire your colleague.

I'm a softie, I'd go for reeducation. You know, dump three or four relevant history books and expect him to read them as research for the next project.

[Valmy]

Besides before the professionals of the 15th and 16th centuries come along is there really anything particularly formidable about western armies?  I mean just because your great-great-great-great Grandchildren are going to be worldbeaters does nothing for you.

[Jacob]

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.

Um the Battle of Legnica?

East Europeans don't count, it seems, and that includes Germans.

[Razgovory]

I don't know how widespread the use of Longbows was in the mid 13th century.  The "Bill and Bow" era of English warfare didn't come until a later I think.  I imagine the Chinese were fairly well organized during the time period, and they didn't do that well against the Mongols.

[The Minsky Moment]

The English were so well organized around 1200 that they were ruled over by a pack of French-speaking neo-Vikings.  At least when they weren't plunged into one of their recurrent civil wars.

[The Brain]

Tough question. The guys who spread their DNA around like saliva on poetry night vs the guys who define homosexuality?

[viper37]

A colleague just advanced the thesis that "the Mongols were over rated. They were just a bunch of disorganized guys on horses who never fought against organized enemies, like the English."

Discuss.

you colleague has probably read "Game of Thrones" and confused the Mongols for the Dothraki   It's the same argument made by Robert or one of his advisors.

Anyway... I think the Mongols could have defeated the English for various reasons:
1- open field, they have mobility, something the English lacked.
2- English were good to fight heavy cavalry with their longbows, in a tiny road, not an open field.  With horse archers arriving quick from multiple directions, combined with light cavalry raids, they would be outmatched.
3- English had strong heavy cavalry, but these were good when fighting non spear infantry and other cavalry using the same tactics.  the Mongol "strategy" was to circle around their ennemy and shoot arrows at them.
4- Mongols had numbers, numbers superior to those of the English.  With superior numbers, the English maybe would stand a chance.  Otherwise, they'd be toasted.

[The Brain]

A colleague just advanced the thesis that "the Mongols were over rated. They were just a bunch of disorganized guys on horses who never fought against organized enemies, like the English."

Discuss.

you colleague has probably read "Game of Thrones" and confused the Mongols for the Dothraki   It's the same argument made by Robert or one of his advisors.

Anyway... I think the Mongols could have defeated the English for various reasons:
1- open field, they have mobility, something the English lacked.
2- English were good to fight heavy cavalry with their longbows, in a tiny road, not an open field.  With horse archers arriving quick from multiple directions, combined with light cavalry raids, they would be outmatched.
3- English had strong heavy cavalry, but these were good when fighting non spear infantry and other cavalry using the same tactics.  the Mongol "strategy" was to circle around their ennemy and shoot arrows at them.
4- Mongols had numbers, numbers superior to those of the English.  With superior numbers, the English maybe would stand a chance.  Otherwise, they'd be toasted.

Toasted by the Mongols?

[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.

[Jacob]

you colleague has probably read "Game of Thrones" and confused the Mongols for the Dothraki   It's the same argument made by Robert or one of his advisors.

I suspect this is probably pretty close to the truth.

[Jacob]

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.

[Razgovory]

A colleague just advanced the thesis that "the Mongols were over rated. They were just a bunch of disorganized guys on horses who never fought against organized enemies, like the English."

Discuss.

you colleague has probably read "Game of Thrones" and confused the Mongols for the Dothraki   It's the same argument made by Robert or one of his advisors.

Anyway... I think the Mongols could have defeated the English for various reasons:
1- open field, they have mobility, something the English lacked.
2- English were good to fight heavy cavalry with their longbows, in a tiny road, not an open field.  With horse archers arriving quick from multiple directions, combined with light cavalry raids, they would be outmatched.
3- English had strong heavy cavalry, but these were good when fighting non spear infantry and other cavalry using the same tactics.  the Mongol "strategy" was to circle around their ennemy and shoot arrows at them.
4- Mongols had numbers, numbers superior to those of the English.  With superior numbers, the English maybe would stand a chance.  Otherwise, they'd be toasted.

Why would you assume an open field?

[Viking]

Presuming equal numbers in northern france with a Angevin leader fielding a force of heavy cav, longbow archers and various melee infantry with command experience on crusade against steppe nomad type opponents against a mongol commander who just a few months ago penetrated germany since in this alt-history 'verse the Khan didn't die.

That really depends, has that mongol force really spent it's impulse and is set up to be charged or is it a ruse to lure the heavy cav into a Carrhae style trap?