I'm not knowledgeable enough to critique this piece, but I feel it's mostly right from what I know from war in the 16th to 18 century that I know way better. H

I'm not knowledgeable enough to critique this piece, but I feel it's mostly right from what I know from war in the 16th to 18 century that I know way better. However I have to critique the author modern horses knowledge. We still breed some horses to be stout, not afraid of collisions and basically be terrors on a field. Maybe because he's from the west, he isn't aware. But our nomad/ex-nomad neighbors still practice kok buru, horseback wrestling, their horses are extremely aggressive to people they don't know, and their horses are everything a battle horse should be. Also I'm not so sure about the point on horseback archers. They weren't just archers, at least in mongols armies. They were also either light or heavy cavalry, extremely well organized. The battle in Poland (maybe medieval Lithuania, I don't remember) where Christian armies met the Mongols for the first time was a typical example of how nomad horseback archers fought (or should fight). Harass to rile up the enemies, when a part of the army is separated (knights in the case), fix them with heavy cavalery and have the lighter cavalery divisions hit them in the back. If the point is about 'pure' horseback archers, I agree, but it's not how the majority of middle age horseback archers acted.