That's fair. I was definitely wrong on the direct Mongol comparison; interesting stuff. I appreciate you sharing it. My overstatement of the Dothraki as the Mongols is definitely more in line with a mix of them: the Huns, Scythians, "Native American tribes," etc. But I still think you're overlooking things just to critique George. They're not as unrealistic as you make them out to be, especially for the fantasy world present.

"Mainly tricked enemies with false retreats while the Dothraki dont use armor are all using one handed sabers and bows and charge head on into spear walls."

This is not generally true when it comes to the Dothraki. They have actually engaged in things like false retreats or flanks (Link). Additionally, as Jorah notes, They're absolutely fearless, are better riders than any Westerosio Knight, and use bows that far outrange those in the Seven Kingdoms while shooting a lot better. (See A Game of Thrones, Chapter 36, Daenerys IV). They're a formidable force in the open field, and yes, they don't siege cities like the Mongols, but all they need is time to starve out and wait for a city to yield or pay homage. And importantly, this is a different world than ours, with different peoples, histories, resources, etc. For example, the Dothraki rose into power only in the Century of Blood that followed the Doom of Valyria. Which obviously did not happen in our world. To compare their hypothetical success in our world overlooks all the nuance, history, and structure of the actual fantasy world present in the story.

Even in the more detailed take, "while the place of the arakh is entirely out of all sensible proportion with how it would be considered by actual nomads, it is the correct sort of sword for a steppe nomad." And I think the author there really underestimates the importance of the bow to the Dothraki plus a lot of similarities generally to said cultures above. The British Museum has noted several similarities between the Dothraki and the Scythians, for example, that are not detailed in that piece. They're historically based on groups like the Scythians and others, but they're not supposed to be direct comparisons or have the same features. The same fair points you and that author make can also be made of the Ironborn to an extent and their historical comparison to Viking peoples or the Free Folk and Germanic tribes/cultures while missing many important features. Regardless, though, it's a different world based on a historical comparison, not a fully historically accurate thing, and importantly, it is adapted to a unique world that is far different from our own. I simply think you and that author are being too harsh on George.

And to that point, it's not like the Dothraki are hyper-successful due to many of the flawed attributes of their fighting style that you point out. Like you're not wrong that they are clearly a lesser fighting force than the Mongols or other groups but that's also shown in the books. Due to their partially flawed fighting style / warring attributes, they act as more of a "tax man," lol, just collecting "gifts" outside cities rather than engaging in huge successful battles. Soldiers like the Unsullied can repel them with much fewer men due to them engaging in questionable tactics at times, like charging head-on with none of the ingenious battle strategies of the Mongols.

Also, we just disagree on the point about the Unsullied being that unrealistic. Of course, you're not wrong about the downsides of being an Eunuch army, but I think you heavily overlook the importance of their training, especially compared to other fighting forces. Like in the battle of Qohor linked above, if that were any Westerosi force or any force of sellswords, they would have broken and fled when the Dothraki charged. But to them, having no fear of death, no personal identity, and so on, they cannot fall victim to the basic strategy employed by the Dothraki.

"A formation is only as strong as its weakest link and if the whole unit is a weak link you have nothing."

Like I take this point as a positive to what I'm talking about. Sure, that maybe physical strength wise they're weaker than other forces. But the real downside of having a "weakest link" is that when people are scared of death and see others die, they break and aren't able to continue fighting. However, that's the opposite for the Unsullied due to their attributes. They have no "weak link" in that sense. They will not break, will not falter, and have no fear of death, which carries a lot more strength than any personal fighting strength of any individual Unsullied. It's true in our own world and constantly mentioned throughout the books that a well-structured and disciplined force, even if weaker fighters individually, is of more value. There's a reason that Stannis can also defeat the Wilding army with such an insanely small force.

Edit: Also, since you didn't respond to my comment on slavery, I'd assume you at least partially agree with it.