Absolutely, if he had reached China, saying going NE from Bactria instead of South. He probably would have an encounter like he did at Gaugamela and his troops would win, and then say F... this were going home. By the time he reached Bactria, Alexanders troops were tired. They were rich from thier conquest but homesick and had marched from Macedon across Asia minor, down to Egypt, in to the Egyptian desert, back across the desert, back up the Palestinian coast, across into Mesopotamia, down the Tigris and Euphrates, across Iran, and in to Bactria in just a few years and had fought dozens of battles.
Alexander VS Qin dynasty
- Thread starter handifei880210
- Start date
Absolutely, if he had reached China, saying going NE from Bactria instead of South. He probably would have an encounter like he did at Gaugamela and his troops would win, and then say F... this were going home. By the time he reached Bactria, Alexanders troops were tired. They were rich from thier conquest but homesick and had marched from Macedon across Asia minor, down to Egypt, in to the Egyptian desert, back across the desert, back up the Palestinian coast, across into Mesopotamia, down the Tigris and Euphrates, across Iran, and in to Bactria in just a few years and had fought dozens of battles.
Well... I am not really sure that Marcelon would win the battle against Qin... As mentioned before, many things plays a part in the battle. And obviously I am not saying that Qin would slaughter the Marcelon Army either... that would just be boastful.
As far as I can tell, and from reading from history books, the Qin Army is one of the strongest in ancient world. The Marcelon Army are also standing at equal footing as compare to the Qin.
What ever we can tell are all from recorded history, no one was to know for sure how good each army was. And it was not always that the army who broke through Persian, Indians, etc are the best in old world... they are the best, might due to the fact that the others might be too weak. And from what I have read, King Phillips and later his son Alexandra the Great, actually introduce an army system that based not on conscription but as professional troops, that is why they could win. It is like fighting peasants.
As for the Qin Army, well... many are conscript as Zaver had pointed out... but as I have also pointed out, Qin Army are at war for 200 years. And so every men in the country had actually seen plenty of battles. They too have regulars and elite forces, that are heavily armoured and they too have palanx. and as pointed out, crossbow are easy to use weapon, and even the untrained could use them to some efficiency. Lets say, one soldier could fire ten in a minute, what would one thousand of them do. And what would a couple of thousand do.
At that time when horses do not have stirrup, fighting on the horseback is quite difficult or outright impossible. However a crossbow could actually be utilise in a single hand (although only one bolt would be fire at the most), but in a cavalry charge, each soldier on the horse back could fire once, bringing large number of arrows at enemy...
So as I could imagine, to defeat the Qin is not as straight forward. But to say that the Qin could easily win over the Marcelon is also not possible... (I am not very well verse with the Marcelon army, but from my limited knowledge, I do know that they are unstoppable in ancient world.)
As far as I can tell, and from reading from history books, the Qin Army is one of the strongest in ancient world. The Marcelon Army are also standing at equal footing as compare to the Qin.
What ever we can tell are all from recorded history, no one was to know for sure how good each army was. And it was not always that the army who broke through Persian, Indians, etc are the best in old world... they are the best, might due to the fact that the others might be too weak. And from what I have read, King Phillips and later his son Alexandra the Great, actually introduce an army system that based not on conscription but as professional troops, that is why they could win. It is like fighting peasants.
As for the Qin Army, well... many are conscript as Zaver had pointed out... but as I have also pointed out, Qin Army are at war for 200 years. And so every men in the country had actually seen plenty of battles. They too have regulars and elite forces, that are heavily armoured and they too have palanx. and as pointed out, crossbow are easy to use weapon, and even the untrained could use them to some efficiency. Lets say, one soldier could fire ten in a minute, what would one thousand of them do. And what would a couple of thousand do.
At that time when horses do not have stirrup, fighting on the horseback is quite difficult or outright impossible. However a crossbow could actually be utilise in a single hand (although only one bolt would be fire at the most), but in a cavalry charge, each soldier on the horse back could fire once, bringing large number of arrows at enemy...
So as I could imagine, to defeat the Qin is not as straight forward. But to say that the Qin could easily win over the Marcelon is also not possible... (I am not very well verse with the Marcelon army, but from my limited knowledge, I do know that they are unstoppable in ancient world.)
western way of war require set peices face to face combat,this idea could have horrified Sun Tzu,(author or art of war) set pieces battle ould result massive casualties for both side, even the victor could it find very costly to sustain.another victory like this they are basically "finished" as a fighting force.
worse example was the battle of thermoplyte,spartan instead of blocking the pass,spartan should allow persian to enter into hot gate then launched a massive ambushed.
if you are familiar with story of later waring state,battle between between Han and tsu and the 3 kingdoms. most of warlord avoid face to face combat,unless he is confidence he can win.
worse example was the battle of thermoplyte,spartan instead of blocking the pass,spartan should allow persian to enter into hot gate then launched a massive ambushed.
if you are familiar with story of later waring state,battle between between Han and tsu and the 3 kingdoms. most of warlord avoid face to face combat,unless he is confidence he can win.
I didn't say Macedon, I said Alexander's troops. How one of the diadachi would have fared I don't know.
Rhino. based on the whole range of casualty estimates, Alexanders troops usually suffered between 1/10th and 1/100th the losses of his enmies.
Also Thermopylae was not a waste, those 300 Spartans bought time for the rest of the allied time to retreat into the Greek interior, war and also allowed the evacuation of Athens to the Island of Salamis. The battle saved the Peloponnesus and thus all of Greece when the allied armies defeated the Persians a year later.
solarz
Brigadier
That's really wishful thinking on your part. At its effective killing range, the Qin crossbow has time to fire 3 shots (as narrated in the video I linked before) before the enemy can close in. Using a rotating firing rank strategy, every crossbow would be able to fire 3 times. Assuming an equal number on each side, that's nine volleys that can easily take down a huge chunk of the Macedonian phalanx. With the Macedonians so tightly compacted, the Qin won't even have to aim.
All of that is assuming ideal conditions for the Macedonians: flat open terrain with no obstacles. Any natural obstacle would slow down the phalanx and cause more slaughter.
Only in your mind.
It's also hilarious how you put up examples of battles where heavy cavalry couldn't close in against missile troops to support your argument that heavy infantry could. Sure, the Qin crossbows aren't English longbows, but then, Macedonian infantry armor can't compare to medieval knight armor.
So you're using anecdotal evidence, very likely exaggerated, over historical texts?
How about some source to back up all your claims about the crossbow? I've given mine, how about you give yours?
That's one interpretation of it... Of course, historians agree that Alexander's troops were pretty shaken by the battle against a local Indian lord, and when they realized that to go on, they would have to cross a wide river and then face an army 10 times as big on the other side, they said "Screw this, let's go home."
Last edited:
1. the first volleys go into the peltast
2. At Breed's Hill the British ended up with 50% casualties mostly via the first two charges up hill. This was with no armor against dug troops using fire arms with no skirmishers between them. The Macedonians have armor and skirmishers.
3. In dozens of battles against housands of missiles troops the Macedonians usually suffered losses in he hundreds compared to the tens of thousands for their foes.
2 shots a minute- thats the rate of fire, care to explain how any formation increases that? Show us the math?
I provided the examples of Crecy and Agincourt vs a very specific claim you made, can you please keep your argument intellectually honest and stick to that example?
Something notable enough to go on a man's tomb vs your fanboi page.
You've provided 1 outsourced claim.
solarz
Brigadier
ROFL... so Alexander is resorting to human wave tactics now to soak up Qin crossbows?
You're comparing a battle where both sides used firearms to phalanx vs crossbows?
Again: persian bows = 100m. Qin crossbow = 800m. The armor piercing power is of magnitudes of difference, it's like comparing 9mm with a sniper rifle.
Oh, so now you know the ROF of Qin crossbows? Source please!
What, the specific claim being that cavalry is needed to protect infantry from archers? Your two examples are hardly relevant in that regard.
Wow, you're more deluded than I thought if you think published books are "fanboi pages".
You've yet to provide anything.
Every time you type I see your IQ drop.
Alexander's Phalanx relied on shoving men with long pikes into the bodies of other men. Getting close is what he did. While not a mad dash human wave like a barbarian rush, the advanc eof the Phalanx is like the tide coming in.
The Lobsterbacks fixed bayonets turning their muskets into spears, and the muskets fired by the colonist had abut the same RoF as the crossbow.
Wow, your sticking to that claim....
Assuming you can get off your kick for a minute, a child bow can send an arrow 100m. A war bow can have a draw weight in the hundreds of pounds. That the Persian bows might not have been effective past 100m is a testament to the strength of their armor and shields, not the weakness of the Persian bow which was based on the Scythian models which serve as the core for re curve bows from Italy to China.
The heavier the draw the slower the rate of fire and crossbows such for plunging fire.
While not Qin specific its runs the gamut from light 1/3 power half span crossbows to massive windlass spanned steel bowed models.
see above. The lightest crossbow was only half as fast as a bow.
Your words, your claim, "On the other hand, history has shown that infantry without enough cavalry support tend to get massacred by powerful ranged troops. (i.e. English vs Scots)
In academia claims require sources that book with claims cite them, that book doesn't thus its fanboi.
I have provided multiple sources through out this thread.
vesicles
Colonel
My feeling is that every type of battle formation has its advantages and weaknesses. It's up the commanders of the opposing army to avoid the advantage of his enemy and exploit the weaknesses. In the case of Alexander vs. Qin, I honestly believe that it is up to Alexander and whoever leads the Qin army and see which one can avoid the advantage of his enemy and exploit the weaknesses of his opponent.
I honestly don't see any point of arguing about this since the outcome of a few battle/war is decided purely by strength on paper. With none of the battles actually happening, no one actually knows how the commanders would react to each other's strategy and tactics. Many times, it is a spurt of moment when someone thought of an ingenious tactics that eventually becomes the decisive movement. One good example. I am reading the famous Battle of Guandu in 3 kingdoms. Cao Cao's 70,000 troops faced Yuan Shao's 700,000. On paper, Yuan had the overwhelming advantage, in number, in eliteness, in weapons, in supply and every aspect you can think of. It was not on the battlefield that decided the outcome of the battle, but Cao decided to surprise attack Yuan's supply in Wu Chao that was defended by a general who's an alcoholic and was always drunk. This attack finally defeated Yuan. So it is useless to ONLY look at formation and weapons.
With that said, I have learned a lot from many posts about ancient battle formations and weapons.
I honestly don't see any point of arguing about this since the outcome of a few battle/war is decided purely by strength on paper. With none of the battles actually happening, no one actually knows how the commanders would react to each other's strategy and tactics. Many times, it is a spurt of moment when someone thought of an ingenious tactics that eventually becomes the decisive movement. One good example. I am reading the famous Battle of Guandu in 3 kingdoms. Cao Cao's 70,000 troops faced Yuan Shao's 700,000. On paper, Yuan had the overwhelming advantage, in number, in eliteness, in weapons, in supply and every aspect you can think of. It was not on the battlefield that decided the outcome of the battle, but Cao decided to surprise attack Yuan's supply in Wu Chao that was defended by a general who's an alcoholic and was always drunk. This attack finally defeated Yuan. So it is useless to ONLY look at formation and weapons.
With that said, I have learned a lot from many posts about ancient battle formations and weapons.
Last edited:
The only way for Alexander to conquer the state of Qin is to ally himself with the other Chinese states. Qin is renowned for its military capabilities and it is comparable to Sparta interms of martial prowess. The policy of the state was to "fuel wars with more wars" and the Qin citizens supported this policy wholeheartedly. Why? Wars offered social advancements for the average Qin peasant. A Qin soldier's status was literally measured by the number of enemy heads that he lobbed off!!! There were reports of Qin men "forgoing armor when it got into the way of fighting" and "charging at their enemies with an enemy head in the left hand and a sword in the right". Just imagine the psychological impact on Alexander's soldiers of having to confront an army like that!