Not that it really matters but:
Mongols were incredibly strict in their crushing of the old practice of vendetta's etc. "Lets see if I kill this bugger in revenge for the slights against my name I will be killed along with most of my relatives (or while campaigning my comrades) - give it a miss this time." They were indeed the most orderly nomads you will find.
The Barbarian Kingdom is Hsuing-nu/Xiongnu not Huns Mortifier as we don't actually know who the Huns were before they showed up in the west. The Hsuing-nu connection is informed speculation which may of may or maynot be correct. Added to this the Hunnic army existed in a completely different context to the Hsuing-nu's lordship over parts of China.
If BK where Huns they would not get significant amounts of Noble cavalry as Roman observers at Attila's court claimed they had no nobles - part of their strength as warriors was that they had no lords over them. They would also burn every city to the ground and live as nomads in the steppe. Somewhat different to the more highly cultured Hsuingnu who could not resist the lure of chinese wealth and comforts. The difference may have emerged with the Huns going (being driven?) west in their more original, hardened, steppe nomad form while the Hsuingnu (presumably more successful at the time of the Huns migration west) preyed on the boundries of Chinese civilisation and developed an enriched nobility - who may have used full horse armour for their HC.
So while it is tempting to equate the BK with Mongols and Huns, as we know them better, it is an approach one should avoid. Looking at ancient societies is about dumping preconceptions as they lead to confusionism - or maybe thats Confucianism in the case of China?
Cheers
Keir
[ November 23, 2003, 20:59: Message edited by: Keir Maxwell ]