Your argument is not about the limitations of stirrups, but about the limitations of knights. You can have stirrups without knights, and stirrups definitely add

Your argument is not about the limitations of stirrups, but about the limitations of knights. You can have stirrups without knights, and stirrups definitely add value, even without knights. Mongols had stirrups without concerning themselves with all those logistical issues. Many places, including western Europe, had lighter cavalry that still used stirrups. > an archer is much easier to replace than a knight Yes, but don't underestimate how hard it is to train a longbow archer; they didn't drop out of the sky either. The reason England had access to so many longbow archers in the Hundred Years War is that a century earlier, Edward I ordered all English villages to train with the longbow every Sunday. That is what created a supply of well-trained longbowmen: a culture of archery. Just like the Mongols had a culture of horsemanship.