Babylon is superior
The Bowmen is superior to the Keshik
Fact- Early
Fact- No Rescources
Fact- Cheap
Fact- Walls of Babylon make them like Cannon
the evidence is clear- It is good that they do not include Babylon and the Mongols in Multiplayer because I would kill everyone who is playing greece and the mongols
You'll need way more than that to convince a single person on this thread.
Fact- Khan>Bowman
Fact- Khan=No Resources
Fact- +1 Movement To All Mounted Units>All Babylonian Calvary
Fact- If you're intelligent, Keshiks should barely be wounded with 5 movement... Believe me, if a Keshik is low on hp, you'll probably never see it again. Within a turn, it'll be long gone.
Fact- With their UA, the Mongols essentially turn any mounted unit into a UU. *Hint hint* Horsemen- Early (Just like Bowman)
Fact- Khan+Keshik+Some Horsemen=Non-stop 5 movement army that heals insanely and can take cities.
Fact- I would take Mongolia over Babylon any day early-mid game.
Mongolia would be larger than Babylon early-mid game (at least) because chances are you would have found a city state nearby and taken it over. (Just 1 or 2) Larger means more production. More production means more units. Secondly, Mongolia could probably rush you before you could do much, considering the majority of their units have 5 movement.
The only advantage Babylon has over Mongolia is their UA, Ingenuity. Mongolia is war focused. Babylon is only partially war focused. This, of course, is determined by your style of play. Late game, Ingenuity will really help. (Even some mid game)
...But please don't act as if Babylon is superior to the Mongols in terms of war. It's simply false. Utterly and clearly incorrect.