Would English longbowman have been effective against the Mongols? I'm thinking that they would have been...

Would English longbowman have been effective against the Mongols? I'm thinking that they would have been, since they would have such a significant range advantage over Mongol shortbows and their mass fire would neutralize the difficulty of hitting a fast moving target.

The mongol fears the Anglo

Mongols would never get that far so why ask

>I'm thinking that they would have been, since they would have such a significant range advantage

Mongol composite bows outrange English longbows by a significant margin, not the other way around. The Mongols are better organized, more numerous, and basically superior in every way that matters.

The longbowmen might some fighting chance in very hilly terrain I suppose.

>mongol composite bows outrange English longbows by a significant margin
Source? That seems unlikely

The Longbow it-self wasn't a better or equally performing bow-design compared to the composite bow, as used by the Mongols, but actually inferior in performance when it comes to the power at the same draw-weight (and thereby range) and were only better on a logistic scale when it comes getting dirty dumb peasants to buy and train with them. There's actually an account from English royal official in 1795 about how a Ottoman Ambassador (Mahmoud Effendi,) brought with him his composite bow to London and managed to shoot as far as 480 yards (record distance shots with the long-bow, in comparison, are around 280-350 yards in history. The English only got a good reputation as archers despite using the long-bow because they simply had abundant access to lumber that was very great for pliant bows, and relied on training their archers to use bows with super heavy draw weights to make up for the inefficient design of self-bows / "long-bows", which was cost effective on a macro-management planning perspective.

So the Mongols might've actually had a range advantage on horse-back, but we don't know for certain because there's no reliable accounts of the maximum effective range of the two at the time. But since the Mongols had a lot of their forces consist of light cavalry as horse archers, it could be argued that if the two faced each other in a open field, the Mongols could simply split their Calvary into different groups and outmaneuver and flank the English archers in different directions at the same time, and overwhelm them.

foot archers beat horse archers.

Foot archers have a much higher volume of fire. Horses are big, hard to armor, and easy to hit.

well since horses cant swim across the channel, probably

There's one story about some celebration where some dudes son shot a target ~500 meters away, seems to be all that's out there. Longbows have been recorded as ranging at 315 meters.

>The original draw forces of examples from the Mary Rose are estimated by Robert Hardy at 150–160 lbf (670–710 N) at a 30-inch (76.2 cm) draw length; the full range of draw weights was between 100–185 lbf (440–820 N).[9] The 30-inch (76.2 cm) draw length was used because that is the length allowed by the arrows commonly found on the Mary Rose.

Longbows shot heavier and thicker arrows.

the channel itself is an almost impeccable barrier.
I don't think you realise just how huge the sea is, it would take weeks if not months to get there, and I doubt the mongols could even aquire such technologically advanced ships that would last this long at sea