Alexander VS Qin dynasty

rhino123

rhino123

Pencil Pusher
VIP Professional
no_name said:
It might be of many factors. Persians might not be that good at naval warfare and the sea is a bottle neck separating asia from greece. that and Xerxes might have had a bit of a victory disease.

Regarding Qin unification of the six nations when warfare becomes enlarged in scale and when outcome is decided by not one battle (though it might be decisive) but prolonged campaign - Then it comes down to economics and logistics really. And Qin dynasty took an early step in reform which place it in front of others (reform by Shang Yang)
Click to expand...

True. But Persian's Navy are actually quite powerful. The main reason for them to be defeated might boils down to the fact that they are not as experience in that type of terrain and battle. The Greeks on the other hand are very familiar with the surrounding and could make use of these to fight effectively. This is especially true in ancient warfare, it was not just the number of men, the training of your men and your hardware that matters... a large portion of it was depending on your surrounding and how you make use of these to your advantage.

On the Qin unification of the six nations... you could actually credit the Qin's success to one factor - Foreign Talents... why? Many of the ideas are created by talents that are not originated from Qin country. Actually Shang Yang was also not Qin people, but born in Wei.
 
Finn McCool

Finn McCool

Captain
Registered Member
rhino123 said:
True. But Persian's Navy are actually quite powerful. The main reason for them to be defeated might boils down to the fact that they are not as experience in that type of terrain and battle. The Greeks on the other hand are very familiar with the surrounding and could make use of these to fight effectively. This is especially true in ancient warfare, it was not just the number of men, the training of your men and your hardware that matters... a large portion of it was depending on your surrounding and how you make use of these to your advantage.

On the Qin unification of the six nations... you could actually credit the Qin's success to one factor - Foreign Talents... why? Many of the ideas are created by talents that are not originated from Qin country. Actually Shang Yang was also not Qin people, but born in Wei.
Click to expand...

The Persian Navy was actually made up of mostly Phoenicians if I'm not mistaken. That's why Alexander was so keen on capturing Tyre, to destroy the last and main base of the Persian navy.

As for the quality of the Persian military, they had to be pretty good considering the fact that they beat the Babylonians, Lydians, Egyptians, various Central Asian tribes, etc. to build the Empire. But by the time of Alexander they Persian military model was obsolete. They had risen to greatness in a time before any sort of professional armies. Their military was made up of conscripts who were gathered up as necessary and divided by rivalries amongst commanders. Their battles against the Babylonians, etc. depended more on the morale of armies and whether or not you could get someone on the other side to betray their King. The Persians were outmatched by the sort of professional armies that began to appear in the later centuries BC, like the Macedonians, Romans and the Qin.

Pound for pound, I would probably say that Macedonian infantry and cavalry were better than Qin units of the same type, possibly by a lot. But the Macedonians didn't have very good missile units. Peltasts don't have anything on crossbowmen. Also the Qin had a vastly superior logistic capability and could put far more men in the field (Legalism is nothing if not efficent!).
 
rhino123

rhino123

Pencil Pusher
VIP Professional
Finn McCool said:
The Persian Navy was actually made up of mostly Phoenicians if I'm not mistaken. That's why Alexander was so keen on capturing Tyre, to destroy the last and main base of the Persian navy.

As for the quality of the Persian military, they had to be pretty good considering the fact that they beat the Babylonians, Lydians, Egyptians, various Central Asian tribes, etc. to build the Empire. But by the time of Alexander they Persian military model was obsolete. They had risen to greatness in a time before any sort of professional armies. Their military was made up of conscripts who were gathered up as necessary and divided by rivalries amongst commanders. Their battles against the Babylonians, etc. depended more on the morale of armies and whether or not you could get someone on the other side to betray their King. The Persians were outmatched by the sort of professional armies that began to appear in the later centuries BC, like the Macedonians, Romans and the Qin.

Pound for pound, I would probably say that Macedonian infantry and cavalry were better than Qin units of the same type, possibly by a lot. But the Macedonians didn't have very good missile units. Peltasts don't have anything on crossbowmen. Also the Qin had a vastly superior logistic capability and could put far more men in the field (Legalism is nothing if not efficent!).
Click to expand...

One thing about the Qin was also their obession in standardisation... which I believe greatly reduce supply chain and logistic problems and enabling them to mass produce weaponries and equipments.

However Qin army was not only powerful in their missile troops... but their commander and emperor welcome foreign talents and accept advises from these talents, that is what make the Qin a powerful state.

However to say that the Marcedonian calvary and infantry are better than the Qin's counterpart by alot would not do the Qin justice. We do not know for sure, except that the Qin, like the Marcedonian had similar formations and actually the Qin also fought with long pikes like the Marcedonian.

The two armies never actually met, so we are not sure how they fare against each other.
 
Finn McCool

Finn McCool

Captain
Registered Member
rhino123 said:
However to say that the Marcedonian calvary and infantry are better than the Qin's counterpart by alot would not do the Qin justice. We do not know for sure, except that the Qin, like the Marcedonian had similar formations and actually the Qin also fought with long pikes like the Marcedonian.
Click to expand...

Well I think we can say that Macedon's cavalry was better than the Qin's cavalry. Chinese cavalry was always held back by the types of horses they had access to. That's part of the reason why the Han and Tang were so concerned about having access to the Western Territories. During the time of the Qin, no one in China had access to superior Central Asian breeds of horses. The animals they had in the Balkans weren't bad for warhorses if I understand correctly (I might be wrong, I'm not an expert on ancient military animal husbandry :D), and certainly Alexander's army had access to superior breeds from its campaigns in Bactria and Sogdiana.

Also Qin armies were able to be so large because they were essentially levies of peasants. They had more training than Western armies of that type (like the Persians and Mesopotamians) and were better equipped but still they weren't exactly professional soldiers. The army that Alexander took to Asia with him was entirely professional. The Macedonian army, and particularly it's household troops, were career soldiers, most of them experienced in combat against the Thracians and Greeks under both Alexander and his father. And a large part of Alexander's army was made up of professional Greek mercenaries too.
 
Last edited:
solarz

solarz

Brigadier
Finn McCool said:
Pound for pound, I would probably say that Macedonian infantry and cavalry were better than Qin units of the same type, possibly by a lot.
Click to expand...

Actually, considering that the Greeks and Macedonians probably weighed more than ancient Chinese, I'd say, pound for pound, the Qin were likely a better deal. :D
 
C

challenge

Banned Idiot
basically it come down to western way of war vs. chinese way of war,in western way of war, both side faces each other,eye ball to eyeball,face to face.during spring and autumn, this tactic was quite common,by the time warring state, warring function begin to employed deception,raid,..etc.in fact trying avoid face to face direct confrontation.
in you are familiar with Tsu-Han battle for surpremancy,romance of the three kingdon or even Mongol conquest of middle east and europe,you notice both side do not deployed the kind of battle formation use by the greek or the roman armies.
 
rhino123

rhino123

Pencil Pusher
VIP Professional
challenge said:
basically it come down to western way of war vs. chinese way of war,in western way of war, both side faces each other,eye ball to eyeball,face to face.during spring and autumn, this tactic was quite common,by the time warring state, warring function begin to employed deception,raid,..etc.in fact trying avoid face to face direct confrontation.
in you are familiar with Tsu-Han battle for surpremancy,romance of the three kingdon or even Mongol conquest of middle east and europe,you notice both side do not deployed the kind of battle formation use by the greek or the roman armies.
Click to expand...

There are no such thing as western way of war or Chinese way of war. All are the same. The only difference are the tactics used (oh... wait... in war... even those tactics are similar too.)

Are you saying that by deception and raid, the armies never faces each other in a showdown? That is pure nonsense. True, the chinese uses a lot of skirmishes and tactics to take down a supposedly superior numbered forces like during Battle of Chi-Bi... but on ground, they still fought close in combats.

As for the western counterpart, they do uses deceptions and tactics too... not just facing each other off. If that was the case, then, as long as you have a massive number of troops (many times more than your opponents) and you could have won the battle because you would swarm them silly. But that was not the case, and in many examples we see lesser number of troops winning over larger number of troops - one good example is Alex battle with the Persian.
 
C

challenge

Banned Idiot
according to western commentator (I forgot his name) if Sun tzu,travel to ancient greek or roman empire,He could have horrified by Greek or roman set piece engagement,True the roman or greek infantries with superiority in hand hand combat can be unbeatable, but this kind warfare ,even the victors will suffer horrific lost,this could demoralized the troop.
the commentaor then fast forward to vietnam war, during the vietnam war,US army repeatedly challenge the vietcong/NV to stop hiding in the jungle ,and come out and fight.like a man.
but vietcong/NV refuse knowing to well they could easily obliterate by US fire power, refuse.
But they did try in 1968 tet offensive,, as expected they are crush by US superior firepower.if was not until US finally pullout,they finally discarded the guerilla warfare and adapted the conventional warfare,tanks,heavy artillery pour into south vietnam,without the US military umbrella ,south vietnam is doom,in fact the latter stage of the war was all out conventional warfare,and take them to down town in Saigon.
North vietnam military high command truely a good student of Sun Tzu.
 
Finn McCool

Finn McCool

Captain
Registered Member
challenge said:
according to western commentator (I forgot his name) if Sun tzu,travel to ancient greek or roman empire,He could have horrified by Greek or roman set piece engagement,True the roman or greek infantries with superiority in hand hand combat can be unbeatable, but this kind warfare ,even the victors will suffer horrific lost,this could demoralized the troop.
the commentaor then fast forward to vietnam war, during the vietnam war,US army repeatedly challenge the vietcong/NV to stop hiding in the jungle ,and come out and fight.like a man.
but vietcong/NV refuse knowing to well they could easily obliterate by US fire power, refuse.
But they did try in 1968 tet offensive,, as expected they are crush by US superior firepower.if was not until US finally pullout,they finally discarded the guerilla warfare and adapted the conventional warfare,tanks,heavy artillery pour into south vietnam,without the US military umbrella ,south vietnam is doom,in fact the latter stage of the war was all out conventional warfare,and take them to down town in Saigon.
North vietnam military high command truely a good student of Sun Tzu.
Click to expand...

At least part of the reason for this is that the West was, for most of history, inferior to China in terms of agricultural productivity, communication over long distances, and centralized state power. So China was always able to maintain more standing forces and stretch wars out over long periods of time, while Western states were generally slaves to the idea of "campaigning seasons" which really only leaves room for one decisive battle. Western kingdoms and empires simply couldn't keep troops in the field like China could. I think that's why wars in Chinese history tended to be much more long, drawn out affairs (like the Han-Chu contention had what 15 battles? Most Roman civil wars had one decisive fight).
 
rhino123

rhino123

Pencil Pusher
VIP Professional
challenge said:
according to western commentator (I forgot his name) if Sun tzu,travel to ancient greek or roman empire,He could have horrified by Greek or roman set piece engagement,True the roman or greek infantries with superiority in hand hand combat can be unbeatable, but this kind warfare ,even the victors will suffer horrific lost,this could demoralized the troop.
the commentaor then fast forward to vietnam war, during the vietnam war,US army repeatedly challenge the vietcong/NV to stop hiding in the jungle ,and come out and fight.like a man.
but vietcong/NV refuse knowing to well they could easily obliterate by US fire power, refuse.
But they did try in 1968 tet offensive,, as expected they are crush by US superior firepower.if was not until US finally pullout,they finally discarded the guerilla warfare and adapted the conventional warfare,tanks,heavy artillery pour into south vietnam,without the US military umbrella ,south vietnam is doom,in fact the latter stage of the war was all out conventional warfare,and take them to down town in Saigon.
North vietnam military high command truely a good student of Sun Tzu.
Click to expand...

Talking of guerilla warfare... do you know the meaning of this word? it means little war... and what language was it? It was Spain... which happens to be the west.

Of course the chinese had uses the theory way before the Napolean war which the guerilla warfare gained its name, but the west also uses this type of tactics.

So don't just look at the East when you heard something like Guerillas. Plus... the reason for the Romans not using tactics like the Qin or later Han and other Chinese dynasties might be because they are great close in combatants. And they are making use of their size and skills to the fullest. For the Chinese... they are smaller in size and so using their tactics works well for them.

By sending Sun Tzu to the ancient west, I can assure you that his tactics will change too, because he will be facing with troops with different skills sets and prowess.

There is always this saying, "To use one's advantage to counter opponent's weakness" (or something to that effect). The Western troops have different advantages as compare to the CHinese, and so the tactics will change accordingly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top