I know it sounds like a stupid and entirely ignorant question, but as someone who is very interested in Medieval history and hoping to make a living learning/teaching it, I thought it'd be prudent to ask regardless. However, I'll be honest, that's not the only reason I ask.
Recently I've been posed with the argument that the European "style" of warfare during the Middle Ages was generally pathetic compared to the "style(s)" used in other regions, and was overall really ineffective against "superior" foreign tactics/strategy/skill. Most notably were the comparisons to the Mongol Invasions.
Furthermore, they claim that European knights of the period were nothing but a joke; guys riding horse with exceedingly heavy armor used for a extremely limited role on the battlefield and used to scare and kill peasants everywhere else. When faced with foreign forces[Vikings(lol), Muslims, Mongols, etc. as per the argument's examples], they were brought down handily.
I consider both arguments to be entirely nonsensical and might perhaps be fueled by a bit of bias(he notably says we when speaking about how eastern forces easily dealt with knights), but in trying to answer the former, I don't want to just pull things out of my ass. I could just say "that's not true," but then my counterargument would be just as presumably baseless as the original argument. Additionally, while I'd consider myself more learned on the subject since the time I've gotten into Medieval history, my knowledge is still extremely limited. I don't know of all that many battles during the period, even less so if we're talking about the time during the Mongol invasions. So while I think his arguments aren't valid, I don't think I'd perform any service to anyone if I "debunked" them with vague and possibly unfounded examples of why European medieval military tactics and strategy *didn't" suck.
So if possible, could anyone here help me out, sources n' all? Anything about battles or medieval European tactics/strategy that might disprove the points? Or is my opponent right about this? I'm not afraid to admit when I'm wrong so as long as what's being presented in opposition is well-grounded.
A very complex question requiring a very complex answer. I specialize in the Mongols and so will focus on the Mongol invasion of Europe of 1237-42 and the European resistance to the Mongols. However just to note, Europe is a large region, and the fighting capabilities of the various European nations were highly varied. If not mentioned, all of the quotes used here are from "Subotai the Valiant: Genghis Khan's Greatest General" by Richard A. Gabriel. The only exception is that brief part about the composite bow from "The Mongol Art of War" by Timothy May.
Richard Gabriel states that "when matched against an army of the sophistication and combat lethality of the Mongols, the armies of feudal europe were hopelessly outclassed"
The armies of feudal europe had a number of strengths as well as a number of weaknesses. Their greatest strength was that of the mounted knight. Very few armies could withstand the direct charge of several thousand mounted knights and it was these heavy cavalry that were the focal point of almost every european army. Their weaknesses were certainly great as well however, especially when compared with a military force as powerful as the mongols. "All of the mongol enemies in the west were feudal societies, and the raising of an army under the feudal system... worked well enough, as long as the war was close to home and didn't last very long. No feudal army had a logistics system of any worth, so that the provisioning and maintaining an army in the field was a very difficult task. A singular weakness of the feudal armies was that their contingents were raised individually as contributions from the barons and other vassals. ... They had no experience in fighting as coordinated units. Moreover, the emphasis on the personal combat skills of the knight provided no opportunity to develop those personal skills required to lead men in battle. Although there were distinctions in social and military rank, feudal armies had no formal chain of command that could compel unit commanders to conform to the general battle plan, assuming there was someone around to draft one in the first place." Additionally, the Europeans typically only gave commanding positions in the military to members of the nobility nobles, meaning that they were limited in the pool of generals and commanders they could draw from. "A European army commander... often fought alongside their men in the thick of battle where he was easily identifiable, and unable to respond to larger developments in the fight."
If you were to compare the armies of europe to some other "foregn forces" as you are asking in your question you would have to weigh up these pros and cons against them, but in this case, comparing the Mongols to the generic european army, the Mongols had them beat in almost every category. (it should be noted that I am simply gathering a description of a "general" european army and that in reality, there were nations that could field stronger and or more effective forces than others. In particular Gabriel mentions the Hungarians and the Germans as having some of the strongest militaries in europe, and in fact the Mongols a large amount of effort to defeat the Hungarians in their invasion.)
The focal point of the Mongol military was the horse archer. About 60% of the Mongol army was composed of these solders, the other 40% being made up of light/heavy lancers. These soldiers had incredible mobility and were armed with powerful composite bows, allowing them to shoot the enemy from up to "300m, with an extreme range of 500m... it's range should be compared to welsh and English longbows of the 14th century and later, which possessed an accurate range of 220m." - The Mongol Art of War by Timothy May.
In terms of logistics the Mongols were by far superior with their ability to sustain an entire advance army off of nothing but stored supplies and what they were able to forage or plunder. A mongol advance force could go without supply wagons for weeks, something almost no other army could do in history. In terms of the larger champain of course, the mongols required supplies, and being thousand of miles away from their home they had some trouble in securing all the supplies they needed, but when you compare the distance the mongols had to tracel with the europeans, the Mongols had the far more efficient system. In terms of generalship the Mongols placed a high priority on promoting commanders by merit and not birth. Subotai, the general orchestrating the invasion of Poland and Hungary actually started off his service to the mongols as a servant of Genghis Khan. Additionally the Mongols had a far more effective system of military communication, with a clear chain of command instituted by the decimal system by which the Mongols organised their armies. The highest base of the system was the Tuman, or 10,000 soldiers. For every 10,000 solders or 1 tuman there were 10 commanders of a 1000 soldiers (minqan). For every minquat there were 10 commanders of a 100 soldiers (jaghun). For every Jaghun there were 10 commanders of 10 men (arban). This meant that each commander only ever had to give orders to 10 men, and the orders would be quickly and without confusion spread through the entire mongol army. In terms of passing on these commands the Mongols had a complex system of signals consisting of colored flags, smoke signals and even whistling arrows. Finally, they tended to keep their generals out of the thick of the battle so they could make decisions as the battle evolved.
In general, when facing a European army in a field, the Mongols held the supreme advantage. This can be seen in the victorious Mongol victory over the Polish forces in the battle of Legnitz. The Mongols really were one of the greatest fighting forces of all time so in reference to your question it is difficult to determine if European armies of the time were weaker in general than non-european armies. As mentioned before some of the European states had very organised and powerful militaries, and when compared to different non-european states would likely preform differently. The European armies had many weaknesses, but their enemies did as well.
I hope that I could help answer your question, even if my response became more of a description of the Mongol military. If you have any specific questions on any topic relating to the Mongols or would like me to go into more detail on some topic I mentioned I would be happy to, just ask.