Who is the strongest pre-european colonial warrior? Is it the Zulu, Aztec, Gorkha , Afgahnistan tribesman...etc

Japanese samurai obviously

Obviously, the Mongols

Attached: hqdefault.jpg (1002x747, 109K)

>pre-european
>colonial
pick one

Pre-colonial duh. European is an obvious implication

really poorly worded question that needed to be proposed better and i assume you mean literally pre-1200AD

obviously ottomans/persians or mongols

again this is pretending that there wasnt at least 1 civilized, established, high tech society dominating their region of the world at just about any given point in history. you have to pretend rome or china never existed to really talk up any other civilizations prior to the 1400s

Not even sure what your question is. Pre-European Colonial (non-European and what year?) Warrior?

That would be the Huns and Mongols. Actually raped the shit out of Europe.

As if it was even a competition.

Attached: IMG_7349.jpg (299x425, 35K)

What were the Mongols even doing when the Huns decided to crash the Euro-party?

Nobody knows shit about Huns or pre-Mongolian Empire Mongols.

> Knights
Shit warriors. Lost to mongols and Arabs repeatedly. Not a single successful crusade. Overhyped movie bullshit. Only good for beating on peasants, when faced with foreign warriors they constantly lost.
> gunpowder/Cannon
Which the Chinese invented and the Arabs had before euros ever did.

I think the Moros from the Philippines would be another candidate.

Zulus and Gurkhas both rose to prominence post-colonialism so out that list definitely the Aztecs.

Phrygians?

>Not a single successful crusade.
Literally explain the kingdom of Jerusalem.
>Lost to mongols and Arabs repeatedly
And Arabs and Mongols lost to them repeatedly as well. Arabs never managed to invade Europe, and Mongols only made it to Hungary. Meanwhile they had managed to conquer literally every Arab nation they came across.
>Chinese and Arabs had gunpowder first
Who conquered the world with it though? Europeans went and sailed to China and assraped them with their own invention.

15 year old redditor knowledge of history

cool post Ahmed

Attached: rk.png (800x658, 962K)

Burmese

Honestly at that point they were largely overextended and didn’t care too much about expanding further away especially cause they already had the most lucrative trade routes. It’s like why the didn’t expand further in the Muslim world.

>Arabs never managed to invade Europe

They made significant inroads into southern France and ruled over all of Iberia for hundreds of years.

Moors =/= Arabs

Just like Ottomans =/= Arabs

The umayyads were Arabs

>Moors =/= Arabs

Attached: what_the_fuck_am_I_reading.png (400x400, 19K)

>Losing to Arabs
In pitched battles Arabs got destroyed 9/10; Euros marched straight to Jerusalem, occasionally stopping to loot, and took it. But fighting an extended campaign in a desert is a different story.
>Crusades unsuccessful
Do muzzies really believe this? Crusaders and their people back home developed a taste for spices and other eastern wares, extending the market for eastern wares in Europe. We also gathered scholarly texts. And afterwards many Europeans went east on foot and others started bankrolling explorers.
Not that impressive. The Umayyads conquered Spain taking it from Visigoths whose leaders only recently became literate and Christian. Most were largely illiterate fire-worshipping pagans. Before the Umayyads moved in most of Spain had been viewed as barbarous and benighted.

>made in roads into France
And then became the laughing stock of European history when Martel shattered and rolled the Umayyads up at Tours.

>Not that impressive. The Umayyads conquered Spain taking it from Visigoths whose leaders only recently became literate and Christian. Most were largely illiterate fire-worshipping pagans. Before the Umayyads moved in most of Spain had been viewed as barbarous and benighted

The visigoths had their first christian king only like 20 years after the merovingians had one and that was 200 years before the caliphate invaded. You are just making up bullshit to fit your terrible historiography.

That’s a hard question do you mean strength as in actual toughness or do you mean combat capability?
Strength would probably be some Maori or Icelandic dude. Combat efficiency, well they all fought different to what their terrain was. Mongols had lots of plains and horses so horse archery made sense while in the America’s Latin and native tribes used foliage to never engage in open combat but more so guerrilla fighting. I don’t think zulus should be up there seeing as they just serges rush and even for being a tribe with little to no technology they still weren’t as proficient as say Maori, Aztec, Cree, Apache. If technology is the sole argument here then it would probably be between the Chinese and ottomans due to their pretty fucking huge amount of such before Europe was even a major player in the world. But honestly throw any warrior outside of his stomping grounds then and he won’t know what the fuck to even do. Imagine seeing mongols in the Mexico jungle or zulus in the frost ridden north. Or chink even that aren’t around other chinks

Gandhi

Attached: poo on you.jpg (480x360, 39K)

And yet almost every nation on earth has been btfo by Europeans at some point or another