Bret Devereaux

Lol, I like how you went through that entire series denying that barbarians have an advantage just to admit that nomads were indeed able to terrorize most of Eurasia and overrun the middle East for thousands of years. And someone you twist that in to the idea being a "mirage".

It's a really impressive ability to twist facts to suit your narrative.

If by 'twist facts' you mean acknowledge the apparent exception, openly concede the facts you note and then point to the degree to which the fellows in question don't at all fit the literary trope we are discussing (and thus cannot save it), then yes. I did that.

When I teach my students argumentation, this is the bit we call "considering counter-arguments." You can reject a counter-argument or - what I do here - incorporate it into your own thesis. The Mongols are the real deal, but not because they're 'hardtime-strongmen.'

The Mongols - and other steppe nomads - are effective because their specific pattern of subsistence plays into a specific pattern of warfare so well. Other, similarly 'hard-timey' peoples - including other nomads! - don't perform nearly as well.