Who would win

von Adler said:
In addition, the Mongols are all mounted and can ride in cirkles around the English army should they choose so.
The Europeans had fought Mongol type opponents before who could also ride circles around them. They were called Saracens and under an average commander the European could whack their arses. There is no reason why they could not do the same to the scruffy sheepherders.
von Adler said:
Mongol victory, ~9 000 English casualties, ~1 000 Mongol casualties.

Numbers from thin air. At the Battle of Arsuf in which the Crusaders were used cross bows instead of longbows and each side had 20,000 men in the same proportions as kw9751's scenario, albeit some of the Crusader infantry would be spearmen. The Crusader took 700 casualties and claimed to inflicted 7,000 on the Saracens, which was probably an over exaggeration. In this scenario We are therefore looking at 350 dead Europeans and 2,000 Mongols. The Europeans also have a morale advantage because the scruffy sheephers have no longer been shown to be invincible.
 
The Europeans had fought Mongol type opponents before who could also ride circles around them. They were called Saracens and under an average commander the European could whack their arses. There is no reason why they could not do the same to the scruffy sheepherders.

The scruffy shepherds were disciplined and enormously well-practiced, if they were actual Mongols. If it's Timur's army, that could go either way, they were recruited from all over, but timur himself was a very good commander. The 13th century Mongols defeated Arab armies very convincingly and it took what was functionally another steppe army to finally beat them at Ain Jalut.

In this scenario We are therefore looking at 350 dead Europeans and 2,000 Mongols.
Numbers out of thin air again. The only chance the Europeans really have is to lure the Mongols close and surprise them with heavy cavalry charging really fast and really successfully.

It worked for the Mamelukes, it also worked when the Hospitaliers did it at Arsuf vs. the Ayyubids. Russian heavy calvary managed to attack the bodyguard and kill a Mongol prince at the Kolomna battle but were nonetheless defeated. It likely won't work for this battle because the longbows will probably force the Mongols away from fighting too close and prevent the European knights from ever closing in.

The Europeans also have a morale advantage because the scruffy sheephers have no longer been shown to be invincible.
Actually, I'd imagine that depending on the terrain, the scruffy shepherds could keep the English army pinned in place and losing morale slowly becaue they can't move away from their defensive position. The Europeans have a big morale disadvantage in other words, but that really depends on the leadership on both sides.
 
As a lot of people have said the mongols would easily win on an open steppe.

Even in a more hilly terrain with trees and stuff the mongols would win again, they were almost as used to fight in mountains as to fight in the plains.

Only if the battle take place literally miles into a forest I think the infantry would have a decent chance to win
 
Actually, I'd imagine that depending on the terrain.
It also comes down to leadership. If the European commander can keep his forces together then the battle is half won. Allow an early impetuous charge or pursuit in response to a feint then the battle is lost.

Put someone like Richard the Lionheart or Edward I in command and the Mongol would be better going home before they get too badly hurt. ;)
 
Put someone like Richard the Lionheart or Edward I in command and the Mongol would be better going home before they get too badly hurt. ;)

Arsuf is a poor example.

It relied on two things the English (them in particular what with their dismounted men at arms and unarmoured bills and archers) won't have: pavises and a good avenue of advance.

The Mongols don't need to fight the English at all, they just need them pinned in place. The Longbow army cannot move from a good setup, they'll be slaughtered. The Longbow army CAN stay put, but they will lose morale and be exposed to the elements and in general be a useless concentration of men if the Mongols are nearby but not really exposing themselves to counter-attacks.
 
It also comes down to leadership. If the European commander can keep his forces together then the battle is half won. Allow an early impetuous charge or pursuit in response to a feint then the battle is lost.

Put someone like Richard the Lionheart or Edward I in command and the Mongol would be better going home before they get too badly hurt. ;)

That cuts both ways. Put Subotai in command and the English army might as well strike its banners, because they probably aren't getting out otherwise.
 
The Arab armies of the age of the crusades did not have compund MONGOL bows. The longbowmen could easily outrange them. The Arab cavalry was usually mostly lancers.

Since a Mongol host can outrange the lonbowmen and are more mobile, there's no real way for the English to hurt them other than at the initial encounter, unless the Mongols are commanded by an imbecile or the English levy is high up on a hill with the Mongol host, the Mongols will just sit on their horses and pepper the lighly armed Longbowmen with arrows from outside the Longbowmens' range.
 
For me, this scenario comes down to this. The mongol army is more mobile, more flexible, more disciplined, and has more firepower (range of bows, possibly numbers as well). Assuming roughly equal generalship, the Mongols can dictate when, where, and how the engagement happens. The mongols can stand off and pound the english with arrows, they can pin them in place and then do as they wish, they can use a feigned retreat, as they did so successfully, they can attack with heavy cavalry. And, generally speaking, the english don't have many options for how to repel or close with them.

Now, there are other factors. Generalship is one, although the mongols had their fare share of competent leaders, and for our purposes it might be best to call it a wash. Terrain could also be a factor, but the more mobile Mongol forces can more or less choose where they fight, so this works in their favor. Even luck may be on their side. The mongol army would be comparativly better ordered, better disciplined. Such troops are, for instance, less likely to route in the face of adversity, or can be given more sophisticated tasks.

I wouldn't say that the mongols cannot be defeated by the english in pitched battle. But I would say that, all factors being as equal as possible, the Mongols start out with a decided advantage.
 
The mongols easily shot further than the longbowmen by a hundred yards or so.

The longbow would very rarely fire more than 300 yards, with a few professionals (which is not a normal thing in a longbowmen levy) being able to reach 400 yeards in extreme conditions in the late 1400s early 1500s. Sources seem to indicate than 250 yards was the common longest range for a unit during medieval times. Draw weight of a longbow was usually 60-80 pounds. A longbowman carried 60-72 arrows.

...

Your figures for the long bow seem pessimistic. Wikipaedia (OK, not an authoritative reference) mentions long bows recovered from the wreck of the Mary Rose and thus guaranteed authentic, but possibly not "elite forces" equipment. Draw weights are given as , typical around 160lb ft, with some up to 180. The 60 pound (foot) you mention is for modern longbows, not at all the same as the medieval weapon.

A replica of the Mary Rose weapon (but with a modern archer) reached 350 metres odd. Wiki notes that a law of Hen VIII specified a *minimum* length of a practice range (longbow practice was compulsory by law) as 220 yards.

The other consideration is rate of fire. English longbow tactics were to lay down an arrow storm - calculations have shown that the English archers at Agincourt could have laid down over 50000 (yes, correct number of zeros) shafts per minute. I do not know definitively about Mongol tactics , but given that they were fighting from horseback, I would assume that they would wheel in and fire individually.

Whether an arrow storm would be decisive would depend I suspect on terrain. In the hedged, walled, forested terrain of France the horseman would be at a disadvantage . Longbow men could fire individually from places of semi concealment, and still keep up a rate of fire much greater than the horsemen - like riflemen in the American Revolutionary Army.
 
Your figures for the long bow seem pessimistic. Wikipaedia (OK, not an authoritative reference) mentions long bows recovered from the wreck of the Mary Rose and thus guaranteed authentic, but possibly not "elite forces" equipment. Draw weights are given as , typical around 160lb ft, with some up to 180. The 60 pound (foot) you mention is for modern longbows, not at all the same as the medieval weapon.

Those Mary Rose longbows are 16th c. weapons. Turkish bows of the same period were even better. In any case, I'd assume our longbows and our composites are fairly evenly matched.

The other consideration is rate of fire. English longbow tactics were to lay down an arrow storm - calculations have shown that the English archers at Agincourt could have laid down over 50000 (yes, correct number of zeros) shafts per minute. I do not know definitively about Mongol tactics , but given that they were fighting from horseback, I would assume that they would wheel in and fire individually.

If they were laying down 50,000 arrows per minute, then they probably had 20 minutes worth of firepower, no?

Surely a good Mongol commander could exploit that - they understood logistics very well.

Whether an arrow storm would be decisive would depend I suspect on terrain. In the hedged, walled, forested terrain of France the horseman would be at a disadvantage . Longbow men could fire individually from places of semi concealment, and still keep up a rate of fire much greater than the horsemen - like riflemen in the American Revolutionary Army.

That depends on what time period we're fighting in, of course. Timur's army could probably dislodge archers with artillery and run them down with horsemen if they tried moving. Subotai might find the 14th. century longbow a problem, of course, strictly technologically speaking.
 
Top