At best, the Mongols and the Comanche were Chiefdoms. They were LARGE Chiefdoms, but never achieved a civilization status.

For all the more esoteric and nebulous definitions cited in the link posted earlier, you can still boil all that down to the same three criteria I use.

Barbaric does not mean stupid either. There were lots of uncivilized societies led by very intelligent people. For whatever reasons, they just never advanced (could mean evolved) their culture. Neither the Comanche nor the Mongols were known for their agricultural developments, though I am sure they had some modicum of it going. Agriculture seems to be the "seed" for civilization to properly develop. Land development precluded seasonal migration. Irrigation provided adequate crop water and roads to move produce and livestock were required to get agriculture beyond the subsistence level. Structured commerce established suitable trade practices and security to make going to market a profitable effort worth the risk of transport. This wealth could buy protection from barbarians, who would just take from the farmers what they needed otherwise. A person who could organize a protection force could enforce rules that favor farmers and inhibit the barbarian from raiding, or looting. Such a person would be able to collect a fee from the farmers for this enforcement.

Infrastructure, centralized government, and structured commerce. These are what drive a society into civilization.