Alexander VS Qin dynasty

pikes are not invincible -- Spanish dealt with Swiss pikes by using short swords and bucklers to lift the pikes.

phalanx also has a weakness in that you cannot ever break formation -- hence it's vulnerable to skirmisher tactic -- long range hit and run. And it is vulnerable to flank attach as it cannot change direction quickly. Roman dealt with phalanx with flexible formation to move out of the way of the phalanx.

Qin army was also better equiped, on average, than the Greeks -- the weapons and equipments are mass manufactured from standard design. The standard of manufacture are good enough that parts are interchangeable. The reason Qin stayed with bronze weapon is not because iron was not available, but because bronze weapon can be mass produced by casting, while iron requires forging.

zraver said:

I've been away from this thread for a long time but...

1. European armor was heavier and would be getting shot at by warheads designed to fight lighter armors. One reason the Hellenic armies used less missiles troops is missiles were less effective vs the armor they wore. The mixed Phalangalist and Hoplite formations were very resistant to missiles as the Persians found out over and over again. At the battle of Gaugamela the Macedonians were outnumbered 2 or 3:1.

2. Chinese melee troops were not as well trained, the Macedonians and Hoplites were veteran warriors, not conscripts.

3. The sarrissa or pike gave the Hellenes an absolute advantage in melee. You specified a fair battle with no advantages. When able to fight on decent terrain the Phalanx could and did but up the Roman legions. Lighter forces almost always got chewed up and spit out. Notable exceptions occurred when a flank got turned.

4. Equal numbers favor the Hellenes based on 1-3.

5. Chinese efforts need to be focused on A- not having an equal battlefield and B winning the cavalry battle, C- having 3x the numbers.

6. Macedonian cavalry (Companions) were uber-elite the only force oin the world at the time able to use shock tactics- but small. Other Greek cavalry was good, but nothing special.

Click to expand...

It's always funny to see people making highly speculative conjectures as if they were God's Own Truths.

1. How do you know Macedonian armor was better than Qin armor? The Hellenic armor might stand up well against missiles weapons from their peers, but how well would it stand up against crossbow bolts?

2. How do you know Qin soldiers were not as well trained as the Macedonians? Alexander's troops might have been well trained compared to other troops in the mediterranea, but the Qin Army was the army that ended a centuries-long civil war through brutal conquest. They were NOT fresh conscripts!

3. The pike formation, especially ridiculously long pikes like the sarissa, are unwieldy in the extreme. They would get slaughtered if they get flanked. Qin also did have shields, thank you very much.

nemo said:

pikes are not invincible -- Spanish dealt with Swiss pikes by using short swords and bucklers to lift the pikes.

Click to expand...

The Spanish lost more battles doing that than they won. Swiss pike are also not Macedonian Pike. The Swiss were an anti-cavalry army forced into anti-infantry work.

phalanx also has a weakness in that you cannot ever break formation -- hence it's vulnerable to skirmisher tactic -- long range hit and run. And it is vulnerable to flank attach as it cannot change direction quickly. Roman dealt with phalanx with flexible formation to move out of the way of the phalanx.

Click to expand...

All very good points, and yet history shows it was not as easy as all that. The skill of the commanders played a huge role. An elite Greek formation lead by a average Greek General will get beaten by and average Chinese army lead by an elite Chinese general and vice versa.

Qin army was also better equiped, on average, than the Greeks -- the weapons and equipments are mass manufactured from standard design. The standard of manufacture are good enough that parts are interchangeable. The reason Qin stayed with bronze weapon is not because iron was not available, but because bronze weapon can be mass produced by casting, while iron requires forging.

Click to expand...

Uniform equipment does not mean better equipped. The best equipment is what works best.

solarz,

1. How do you know Macedonian armor was better than Qin armor?

Click to expand...

The Terracotta Army shows a much more flexible and thus less protective covering. In Europe a nearly identical type of armor would evolve called brigandine. However the actual armor is secondary what is important is the shield and helms. The Chinese lacked the large bronze faced shields and bronze helms.

The Hellenic armor might stand up well against missiles weapons from their peers, but how well would it stand up against crossbow bolts?

Click to expand...

The addition of helms and shields reduces the range at which Chinese missiles would be effective. This means the Greeks are going to get closer than a comparable Chinese army and the crossbow has a lower rate of fire. Missile troops are not going to do the job.

3. The pike formation, especially ridiculously long pikes like the sarissa, are unwieldy in the extreme. They would get slaughtered if they get flanked. Qin also did have shields, thank you very much.

Click to expand...

I addressed this point above.

2. How do you know Qin soldiers were not as well trained as the Macedonians? Alexander's troops might have been well trained compared to other troops in the mediterranea, but the Qin Army was the army that ended a centuries-long civil war through brutal conquest. They were NOT fresh conscripts!

Click to expand...

I never said they were poorly trained- but they were trained to fight other Chinese using a loose order drill. The length of the swords is conclusive proof they did not fight shoulder to shoulder. Loose order armies do not have a very good record against compact masses of heavy infantry. The Qin armies were the cream of the crop vs other Chinese armies, but that is not proof of how well they would do outside the style of warfare seen in China. The Macedonians on the other hand faced numerous and different foes each with their own style of warfare. That point is the big one for me. The Chinese had far less experience outside of their own world view. Alexander marched across Asia fighting Greek, Persian, barbarian and Indian armies in a variety of situations and always emerged victorious.

zraver:

1. More flexible armor doesn't automatically mean less protective. You also underestimate the armor-piercing power of Qin crossbows.

2. There's a reason Chinese armies don't use, and have never used in any extensive way, a tightly packed infantry formation. Compact infantry formations are extremely vulnerable to missile weapons. They are rigid and slow to maneuver on the battlefield. The Hellenic armies used such formations because of a lack of threat from powerful missile weapons. Using such tactics against Qin is likely to result in a slaughter.

3. You argument that Alexander has the advantage because he fought more varied opponents is just another big conjecture.

First of all, Warring States China had more varied military tactics than you seem to realize.

Secondly, if anything history has taught us, it is that pre-gun powder era, discipline and tactics counted for a lot more than military equipment. Alexander won his battles mainly due to his tactical genius and his army's superior training. Faced against an equally battle hardened (if not more) Qin army, you really can't draw much conclusion from his previous victories.

solarz said:

zraver:

1. More flexible armor doesn't automatically mean less protective. You also underestimate the armor-piercing power of Qin crossbows.

Click to expand...

an arrow/bolt head designed to penetrate leather will perform differently vs lamallar and plate.

2. There's a reason Chinese armies don't use, and have never used in any extensive way, a tightly packed infantry formation. Compact infantry formations are extremely vulnerable to missile weapons. They are rigid and slow to maneuver on the battlefield. The Hellenic armies used such formations because of a lack of threat from powerful missile weapons. Using such tactics against Qin is likely to result in a slaughter.

Click to expand...

Densly packed troops with heavy helms and shields are much better facing missile troops that loose order. The Greeks faced the Persians who were loaded with missile troops using hornbows.

3. You argument that Alexander has the advantage because he fought more varied opponents is just another big conjecture.

First of all, Warring States China had more varied military tactics than you seem to realize.

Click to expand...

By your own admission the Chinese never used the Phalanx system or fought that type of heavy infantry. The Greeks on the other hand did face loose order formations backed by tons of missiles.

Secondly, if anything history has taught us, it is that pre-gun powder era, discipline and tactics counted for a lot more than military equipment. Alexander won his battles mainly due to his tactical genius and his army's superior training. Faced against an equally battle hardened (if not more) Qin army, you really can't draw much conclusion from his previous victories.

Click to expand...

Alexander proved he could defeat a wide range of foes across varied terrain.

zraver said:

No it doesn't, it indicates the use of spears not pikes.

Click to expand...

You think something like 6 meters is still a spear?

1. The Hellenes used pikes in a very specific manner, to push other armies. The Terra Cotta army lacked shields. So while the valiant Qin troops were trying to stick their spears into Hellenic bronze shields, the Greeks and Macedonians would be sticking their even longer sarrisa into Chinese flesh.

Click to expand...

Again not true. Ancient Chinese armies do use shields. After all this time you don't do research. The Terra Cotta army is really in parade formation, which is the reason no one is wearing a helmet either.

2. The length of the swords indicates a loose order battle drill. Not the4 highly regimented style used by the Greek world.

Click to expand...

Wrong. The lack of helmets in the Terra Cotta army indicate a parade formation.

The reason why the heads are exposed is because the hair is exposed, and the way the hair is done indicates rank.

Says zero about how well they fought. That they fought better than the other Chinese armies is a given. But lacking shields and with weapons set up for loose order its entirely likely they would have folded like a wet sack vs a Phalanx unless other factors were in play. All stacks of heads tell us is that is was a bad thing to lose to them and be in the area POST-battle.

Click to expand...

Skirmishers have their purpose. They are a lot more flexible and faster, far more tactically advantageous on uneven terrain.

Qin pikemen likely to operate in a matrix like Swiss pikemen where the formation can easily change direction.

Another thing, the Qin Army is perfectly equipped to deal with pikes and spears. The Ge or dagger axe can be used to easily push down or pull up a pike, then trust and pull where the backward movement will rip the opponent.

If you look at the weapon closely, with the length and the point, the point can do a good job piercing.



And even with swords, the Qin would already have an advantage due to the superior metallurgical techniques applied in creating a sword, such as the Sanmei construction that is the eventual basis for creating Japanese swords like katana.

This Sanmei construction is also applied in creating the dagger axes, hence those blades are going to be extremely sharp and strong. We know at this point of time, the ancient Chinese has better furnace technology than anyone else, which means they can heat and temper blades at higher temperatures than anyone else, and at a mass production scale.

zraver said:

an arrow/bolt head designed to penetrate leather will perform differently vs lamallar and plate.

Densly packed troops with heavy helms and shields are much better facing missile troops that loose order. The Greeks faced the Persians who were loaded with missile troops using hornbows.

Click to expand...

If you think that Qin crossbows were designed to penetrate leather, and that densely packed troops, with shields or not, is better at facing missile troops, then you really need to do more research.

By your own admission the Chinese never used the Phalanx system or fought that type of heavy infantry. The Greeks on the other hand did face loose order formations backed by tons of missiles.

Click to expand...

No, I said Chinese armies never used in any extensive way the tight formation heavy infantry. That doesn't mean such formations never existed. In fact, the Qin themselves had pike formations with 7-meter long pikes.

Here are some excellent videos about Qin pikes and crossbows, and associated tactics:

Alexander proved he could defeat a wide range of foes across varied terrain.

Click to expand...

Do you have any idea how varied the terrain is in China?

zraver,

Has it ever occurred to you that they wear leather armor because it performs about the same as lamellar and plate when up against the penetrating power of the crossbows?

The phalanx is only effective when they can limit contact to the front, in larger and more diverse battle field that is not an option.
The Greek world is small, they had limited fighting experience that will not carry them through the rest of the world.

Take Alexander for example, he quickly recognized the weakness of the heavy infantry formation and adapted, keeping his infantry for mostly defensive purposes while utilizing more missile troops and cavalry for offense.

Another example is when the world expanded to the Roman empire, again they never emphasized the role of phalanx, there are plenty of sources(e.g. battles against the German tribes) on this so I won't bore you with the details.

In short, the effectiveness of the phalanx is limited only to the Greek combat style and under certain unspoken rules of engagement.

This is not to say Alexander will lose for sure, because there is always the chance that a tactical genius like him will adapt and learn from his adversaries. But if he is expecting to use only what he has to combat the Qin empire, then things will not go well for him.

xywdx said:

zraver,

Has it ever occurred to you that they wear leather armor because it performs about the same as lamellar and plate when up against the penetrating power of the crossbows?

Click to expand...

It doesn't perform the same though.

The phalanx is only effective when they can limit contact to the front, in larger and more diverse battle field that is not an option.
The Greek world is small, they had limited fighting experience that will not carry them through the rest of the world.

Click to expand...

And yet, the Macedonian Phalanx fought battles where it was outnumbered and won.

Take Alexander for example, he quickly recognized the weakness of the heavy infantry formation and adapted, keeping his infantry for mostly defensive purposes while utilizing more missile troops and cavalry for offense.

Click to expand...

He used them offensively- they formed the base that would pin the enemy like bugs so that his cavalry could then attack.

Another example is when the world expanded to the Roman empire, again they never emphasized the role of phalanx, there are plenty of sources(e.g. battles against the German tribes) on this so I won't bore you with the details.

Click to expand...

Rome used the Phalanx, when they threw off the Etruscan yoke, the Greeks controlled Southern Italy and they were the major influence on them. The Legions evolved from the Phalanx.

In short, the effectiveness of the phalanx is limited only to the Greek combat style and under certain unspoken rules of engagement.

Click to expand...

Yup, Persia sacrificed its empire to honor certain unspoken rules.... King Pyrrhus beat Rome, as did a couple of Macedonian commanders.

This is not to say Alexander will lose for sure, because there is always the chance that a tactical genius like him will adapt and learn from his adversaries. But if he is expecting to use only what he has to combat the Qin empire, then things will not go well for him.

Click to expand...

Merely reinforces what I said earlier- the commander is going to be the most important factor.

The more I look at those crossbows, the more I think that Alexander is way out of his league.