Well, everyone knows Mongol cavalry archers fire 25% faster...
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a bow is a good guy with a bow…
That being said, the Mongols failed to build a lasting empire in Europe / West of the Ural. They pretty much did build a lasting one between the Ural and, sometimes including, mainland China.
And I'd hardly say the Mongols failed just because they couldn't hold to western Europe.
The direct heir actually didn't split. It was only later the families split.
> And I'd hardly say the Mongols failed just because they couldn't hold to western Europe.
I mean failed to hold Europe.
Charlemagne passed the entire empire to Louis the Pious, and Louis the Pious had three heirs that split the empire. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Verdun
The effectiveness of the Alexander's sarissa is as much a result of training and tactics as the weapon itself; I think it took years of training to turn a soldier into an effective sarissa user. Thus I personally would not consider it a wunderwaffe. A crossbow, to me, is a better example as it enabled yesterday's peasant to kill a trained soldier from a distance, without many years of training needed to master archery. My 2c.
AFAIK sarissa is a no-brainer without even ability of operating this weapon with one man. That allowed Alexander to take a lot of captured Persian men with no training under realy trained Greeks standing somewhere in more safe places of the formation. Miyamoto Musashi considered a spear as a king of weapons. But I am not a historian and all I told here is just an opinion, not a fact.