I would actually say that the Mongols are at least as likely a model for the Dothraki than the Huns. The equestrian culture was much more pronounced in the latter. They also share the penchant for council-like gatherings of an otherwise nomadic people to mark important events. To some extent, though, I suppose one could argue that coming from the same region, most all the cultures share similar features, and insisting too much on any one in particular as an inspiration is silly. I do have one large frustration with this thread, though. The format seems awful and inadequate for the task at hand. You purport to describe why you dislike Martin's works. Yet, much like Martin, seem to have chosen the most verbose and circuitous way of doing so. You note historical parallels, but then explain that you are not using them as a point of criticism, but merely bringing them up? Why? How does that help me understand why you dislike the book? Likewise, do the plot summaries shed any light on affairs? What is the body count supposed to imply, that all books with a certain amount of deaths in them are of a certain quality? Or is this merely another "by the way" statistical exercise? A novel is not just a series of short pieces haphazardly strung together. There is a whole that matters. Your approach so atomizes the book that no one ever gets a grasp on what you think is wrong with that whole. Instead, we just get a sentence or two of wry criticism about things that are, in many cases, ultimately trivial. If you have global criticisms of the series, why not address them globally? Your present approach only serves to produce a lot of filler material.