Where would the real disadvantage be...

[Watchman]

...although, at least as far as the light nomadic-pattern HAs go, arguably the main reason for their continued use throughout the millenia was simply that whatever their real and numerous enough limitations, in certain parts of Eurasia where cavalry was the king anyway they were just plain readily and cheaply available. The common nomadic tribesman could be employed as a quite effective light cavalryman, scout, raider and skirmisher "off the shelf" without further ado.

Given the vital importance of light horse for what might be termed "campaign duties" (ie. scouting, foraging etc.) for any army, whatever their battlefield potential, this was obviously a detail any warlord could well appreciate.

(PS: What, no Almighty Moustache(tm) ? You're slipping, TPC. )

[Lysimachos]

If i remember correctly there even fought some cossacks with bows at the battle of Leipzig in 1813

[Watchman]

1813, Hell. You had Mongol irregulars with composite bows in the damn Boxer Rebellion and whatnot.

Not exactly fearsome battlefield presence obviously, but then nobody expected that either anyway.

[Lysimachos]

You had Mongol irregulars with composite bows in the damn Boxer Rebellion and whatnot.

Wow, i didn't knew that. But now, when you are talking about that, i come to the feeling that it would be probable to find evidence of horse archers in second world war or maybe some later african civil war or something...

[Strategos Alexandros]

When Hitler invaded them the Polish tried a cavalry charge at his tanks.

[Lysimachos]

When Hitler invaded them the Polish tried a cavalry charge at his tanks.

That is a popular myth: The Polish indeed used cavalry (as did germany, russia, romania and others, too!), but they were used for scouting etc. In fact there are no reports on an occurence where cavalry was engaging tanks, though it is still a popular story.

[Strategos Alexandros]

Really? I didn't know that.