Why are there no Sarmatian invasions during EB's period?

[AqD]

Isn't this contradictary to what the Pahlava did, as they conquered a settled empire but still managed to maintain their army and combat style?

But how expensive it is, to maintain an army of nearly entire cavalry? Besides it's not as effective as nomadic ones, who have no cities/towns to defend (and HA is useless for that). I don't think there is any other settled nomads who did this like Parthians.

[Ibrahim]

But how expensive it is, to maintain an army of nearly entire cavalry? Besides it's not as effective as nomadic ones, who have no cities/towns to defend (and HA is useless for that). I don't think there is any other settled nomads who did this like Parthians.

you might want to delete that one too, as TPC will be on you rear in no time. and since the fact is that the Pahlavan (and later the Saassanids), were able to deflect nomads and hold their own, I see no reason to assume they were in any way inferior to other steppe poeple.

[Krusader]

Apart from the Parthians, I'd dare say the Turks are another good example. And the Saka & the Yuezhi (Kushans) to a lesser extent.

[Jolt]

But how expensive it is, to maintain an army of nearly entire cavalry? Besides it's not as effective as nomadic ones, who have no cities/towns to defend (and HA is useless for that). I don't think there is any other settled nomads who did this like Parthians.

The thing is (And TPC might correct me, should he spring up on this thread), that since the Pahlava society was a feudal one (comparable to Medieval Feudalism), each noble and his clan were sufficiently rich and powerful enough, to each field a considerable amount of cavalry soldiers. The central government (e.g. The Parthian king), had little to pay, as probably, even his clan members who accompanied him to battle (Kinsmen or sorts in EB), had to afford their own equipment. So the entire army you speak of, the Parthian one, was maintained by each and everyone, and not by one (The King) and his administration. And what do you mean by effectiveness? The primary problem for maintain a large contingents of horses, and thus, cavalry armies, wasn't the cost, but a sufficient availability of herding grounds to feed the many horses the army had. That's why you see the Sarmatians and other Steppe people, who weren't particularly rich, having the said cavalry-based armies? I don't know exactly the specifics of countering Horse Archers per se, but since the Parthians had merged both Nomadic style warfare and "Standard" style warfare, and since they were pretty clever fellows, I'm sure they knew ways to defeat other Nomadic armies.