oh ok.Well all '"what if" questions are difficult to answer.My guess is that if Qin army hadn't been organized enough,they would have been defeated.
Alexander VS Qin dynasty
- Thread starter handifei880210
- Start date
oh ok.Well all '"what if" questions are difficult to answer.My guess is that if Qin army hadn't been organized enough,they would have been defeated.
vesicles
Colonel
Any army not organized enough would be defeated... This kind of conditional scenario should be excluded from the discussion. So many things could happen that might tilt the balance. For instance, Alexander's soldiers might get some weird disease and gets annihilated in China. Wait, it actually happened to Alexander himself... Since this hypothetical battle never happened, the focus is more on equipment and tactics.
You've got to remember that in the Greek world, there was only one Sparta. Many states engaged in war, but we remember Athens for its cultural achievements rather than its military successes.
In the Warring States period, virtually every Chinese state was a Sparta. Each state was highly militarized and had a conscription system to enable the equipping and maintaining of hundreds of thousands of men. There were states that went further in this; see Qin as an example, but the point still stands about the environment: how would Greek history have developed if every Greek city-state was actually a Sparta as well, and that each Greek city-state was so dedicated to the elimination of its enemies?
That is the context in which Chinese war developed. After the Warring States period, Chinese society became less militarized and military values began to decline in favor of civilian values, seen in Confucian, Daoist, then Neo-Confucian ideology. This is why the Han army would have trouble against the Romans and that no later Chinese dynasty has been a true military powerhouse; the Ming were barely able to force a truce with the Japanese, a much smaller nation, in the Imjin Waeran and would not have been able to maintain Korea if it weren't for the efforts of the legendary Korean admiral Yi Sun-shin.
Between Qin and Alexander, the main challenge would be the conflict between tradition and genius. I would say that the Qin military system is decisively superior to that of Alexander's, given the context in which it developed. It was capable of complete conscription and had superior military technology, and possibly superior tactics.
Alexander, on the other hand, is sui generis, and if he hadn't died it would have been incredible to see what further victories he would have achieved. His military genius is probably greater than that of any other man of his era or after.
What would have happened is that time would be on Alexander's side. In initial engagements with the Qin army, Alexander would be crushed in every battle he'd choose to keep, because his military system is inferior to that of the Qin's. But as time went on, Alexander would be able to adapt aspects of the Qin military system and understand how to exploit its flaws and weaknesses. As with the Romans, there's nothing stopping Alexander from adopting crossbow technology, even in a debased form, or employing crossbowmen in ranked formation.
On Qin home ground, Alexander would be initially stymied and take heavy defeats at the end of his supply line. If the Qin were able to destroy Alexander there and then, Qin would defeat Alexander as he would lose too many men to adapt Qin weaponry and tactics.
On Greek home ground, however, the Qin would have their own logistical nightmares to deal with; with extremely large forces, it would be very difficult for the Qin to provision their armies and initial battles would not necessary end in their advantage. At the end of the day, the Qin would eventually have to retreat as Alexander would adopt their methods of war and use it to butcher the Qin armies.
===
With regards to the crossbow, as someone skilled in archery could tell you, power is not the same thing as range. Range is a function of power and the weight of the projectile.
The most powerful archery weapons tend to be extremely short-ranged, because you need an extremely long power stroke to transfer the full energy of the weapon to the projectile. To compensate, you use a heavier projectile, which can absorb more energy in a shorter stroke, but is ultimately more short-ranged.
Compare the Ming composite bow to the Manchu composite bow, or the Mongol composite bow, for that matter. The Ming composite bow was under the same lines as the Mongol or Turkish composite bow; it was designed for moderate power, a long power stroke, and a light arrow. This allowed it to transfer high amounts of energy to a light projectile, resulting in improved range.
The Manchu composite bow, on the other hand, was a composite longbow designed for horseback use. It had an effective range of only 100 meters, but it could deliver a killing blow to a fully-armored man at short range.
What we know about the Qin armies at the time of Qin Shi Huang suggests that the Qin had a variety of bolts for their crossbows. Some bolts resembled arrows; they were designed to be long and light, meaning that they were good for long ranges and for engaging lightly-armored troops. Other bolts were made completely out of lead, and were intended to defeat armored troops.
The Qin armies then, would be fully equipped to deal with whatever soldiers Alexander could throw at them; armor-piercing bolts would defeat the bronze armor of Alexander's hoplites and even cavalry, while lighter bolts would provide them protection against ranged troops.
I would take issue with claims that the Ge is extremely powerful against Alexander's melee troops, though. IIRC, known Ge tend to be rather light implements, with both a spike for thrusting and an edge for cutting. The traditional use of the Ge, and the reason it died out in Chinese warfare, was to thrust it at the target's head in a feint, then pull back with the cutting edge. The amount of metal and the amount of edge in the weapon was really insufficient for it to be a true halberd, and since it's primarily a cutting weapon, I doubt it would perform well against heavily-armored troops.
In the Warring States period, virtually every Chinese state was a Sparta. Each state was highly militarized and had a conscription system to enable the equipping and maintaining of hundreds of thousands of men. There were states that went further in this; see Qin as an example, but the point still stands about the environment: how would Greek history have developed if every Greek city-state was actually a Sparta as well, and that each Greek city-state was so dedicated to the elimination of its enemies?
That is the context in which Chinese war developed. After the Warring States period, Chinese society became less militarized and military values began to decline in favor of civilian values, seen in Confucian, Daoist, then Neo-Confucian ideology. This is why the Han army would have trouble against the Romans and that no later Chinese dynasty has been a true military powerhouse; the Ming were barely able to force a truce with the Japanese, a much smaller nation, in the Imjin Waeran and would not have been able to maintain Korea if it weren't for the efforts of the legendary Korean admiral Yi Sun-shin.
Between Qin and Alexander, the main challenge would be the conflict between tradition and genius. I would say that the Qin military system is decisively superior to that of Alexander's, given the context in which it developed. It was capable of complete conscription and had superior military technology, and possibly superior tactics.
Alexander, on the other hand, is sui generis, and if he hadn't died it would have been incredible to see what further victories he would have achieved. His military genius is probably greater than that of any other man of his era or after.
What would have happened is that time would be on Alexander's side. In initial engagements with the Qin army, Alexander would be crushed in every battle he'd choose to keep, because his military system is inferior to that of the Qin's. But as time went on, Alexander would be able to adapt aspects of the Qin military system and understand how to exploit its flaws and weaknesses. As with the Romans, there's nothing stopping Alexander from adopting crossbow technology, even in a debased form, or employing crossbowmen in ranked formation.
On Qin home ground, Alexander would be initially stymied and take heavy defeats at the end of his supply line. If the Qin were able to destroy Alexander there and then, Qin would defeat Alexander as he would lose too many men to adapt Qin weaponry and tactics.
On Greek home ground, however, the Qin would have their own logistical nightmares to deal with; with extremely large forces, it would be very difficult for the Qin to provision their armies and initial battles would not necessary end in their advantage. At the end of the day, the Qin would eventually have to retreat as Alexander would adopt their methods of war and use it to butcher the Qin armies.
===
With regards to the crossbow, as someone skilled in archery could tell you, power is not the same thing as range. Range is a function of power and the weight of the projectile.
The most powerful archery weapons tend to be extremely short-ranged, because you need an extremely long power stroke to transfer the full energy of the weapon to the projectile. To compensate, you use a heavier projectile, which can absorb more energy in a shorter stroke, but is ultimately more short-ranged.
Compare the Ming composite bow to the Manchu composite bow, or the Mongol composite bow, for that matter. The Ming composite bow was under the same lines as the Mongol or Turkish composite bow; it was designed for moderate power, a long power stroke, and a light arrow. This allowed it to transfer high amounts of energy to a light projectile, resulting in improved range.
The Manchu composite bow, on the other hand, was a composite longbow designed for horseback use. It had an effective range of only 100 meters, but it could deliver a killing blow to a fully-armored man at short range.
What we know about the Qin armies at the time of Qin Shi Huang suggests that the Qin had a variety of bolts for their crossbows. Some bolts resembled arrows; they were designed to be long and light, meaning that they were good for long ranges and for engaging lightly-armored troops. Other bolts were made completely out of lead, and were intended to defeat armored troops.
The Qin armies then, would be fully equipped to deal with whatever soldiers Alexander could throw at them; armor-piercing bolts would defeat the bronze armor of Alexander's hoplites and even cavalry, while lighter bolts would provide them protection against ranged troops.
I would take issue with claims that the Ge is extremely powerful against Alexander's melee troops, though. IIRC, known Ge tend to be rather light implements, with both a spike for thrusting and an edge for cutting. The traditional use of the Ge, and the reason it died out in Chinese warfare, was to thrust it at the target's head in a feint, then pull back with the cutting edge. The amount of metal and the amount of edge in the weapon was really insufficient for it to be a true halberd, and since it's primarily a cutting weapon, I doubt it would perform well against heavily-armored troops.
ancient sparta field what is consider history first proffessional armies,solders being paid to fight, military drill,the roman not only copy it but actually improve her organization .or military bureaucracy.
by contrast, ancient chinese armies like her counterpart in the near east,rely on concrispt,little or no traning at all,poorly train.just to increase her head count.
by contrast, ancient chinese armies like her counterpart in the near east,rely on concrispt,little or no traning at all,poorly train.just to increase her head count.
Since I was a proponent of the Ge; I would take up a defense that it is that much of a game changer.
The Ge, is a 9-18 foot long weapon with a dagger blade at the end perpendicular to the shaft and a thrusting point at the tip - ok, the final version of the Ge. This is very similar to the medieval swiss halbard; which is known to be very useful when two pike armies fought the push of the pike; like Swiss VS Landsknecht.
Ofcorse, the push of the pike, is just a medieval version of the Macedonian Phalangite Vs. the Qin Phalanx; so if the Swiss and the Landsknecht; found the pike useful during the push of the pike, I doubt that Qin won't find the Ge useful when they engage the Phalangite.
Ofcourse, the halbard is very effective against mounted melee fighters, I would expect the same from the Ge versus the Champion Calvary.
The down fall of the Ge, is not that it was an obsolete weapon; it was only that the enemies China was fighting; didn't have heavy armored infantry formations. The Ge is not that useful versus the nomads whom are mounted missile troops.
-----------------
Alexander's achievements are legendary, but I have my reservations that it was really him that is the genius. The scale is also very different; Chinese armies are easily in the 200-400K mark; and Qin with a population of over 20 million can easily field multiple armies that can contend and hold back Alexander. If Macedonia fields a large enough army to invade Qin, It won't have one large enough to defend Mecedonia from Qin invasion. If Alexander remains on the defensive, then it will be an industrial war, Which WW2 have shown us, the bigger economic muscle will win.
As a commander who lead from the front, had he Died, the Macedonians would have been routed. Qin, had many able generals whom could match Alexander; like Bai Qi, who also have not lost a single battle in his career.
The Ge, is a 9-18 foot long weapon with a dagger blade at the end perpendicular to the shaft and a thrusting point at the tip - ok, the final version of the Ge. This is very similar to the medieval swiss halbard; which is known to be very useful when two pike armies fought the push of the pike; like Swiss VS Landsknecht.
Ofcorse, the push of the pike, is just a medieval version of the Macedonian Phalangite Vs. the Qin Phalanx; so if the Swiss and the Landsknecht; found the pike useful during the push of the pike, I doubt that Qin won't find the Ge useful when they engage the Phalangite.
Ofcourse, the halbard is very effective against mounted melee fighters, I would expect the same from the Ge versus the Champion Calvary.
The down fall of the Ge, is not that it was an obsolete weapon; it was only that the enemies China was fighting; didn't have heavy armored infantry formations. The Ge is not that useful versus the nomads whom are mounted missile troops.
-----------------
Alexander's achievements are legendary, but I have my reservations that it was really him that is the genius. The scale is also very different; Chinese armies are easily in the 200-400K mark; and Qin with a population of over 20 million can easily field multiple armies that can contend and hold back Alexander. If Macedonia fields a large enough army to invade Qin, It won't have one large enough to defend Mecedonia from Qin invasion. If Alexander remains on the defensive, then it will be an industrial war, Which WW2 have shown us, the bigger economic muscle will win.
As a commander who lead from the front, had he Died, the Macedonians would have been routed. Qin, had many able generals whom could match Alexander; like Bai Qi, who also have not lost a single battle in his career.
Kurt
Junior Member
The military system is an expression of a society on how they want to enforce their will.
Sparta had a very tiny class of highly trained professionals. These monopolized political power and used quite brutal methods to keep things that way. Over a few centuries their numbers dwindled to insignificance and during Alexander's time the Spartans were commanders of mercenary forces, because they themselves were too few to pose a threat.
The Macedonian military system under Alexander's command is Philip's creation. Philip II is the slightly less illustrous father who would be always remembered by the rank and file of the Macedonian infantry throughout the Hellenistic Age to the last stands against the Romans. Alexander is the son, who inherited this system after his father's premature death and used it for his ambition of conquest that lacked consolidation. It's interesting to see the discusssion centered around Alexander after the conquest of Persia going on against the Qin. As soon as you look at Philip's Macedonia and compare it with Qin China, you have states that are very much alike in all but size with very similar military systems.
I am sorry, your statement is ill informed, ancient china practiced the family system, every 3-5 family will send one man to the miliary and support him year round. He serves year round, wears laqured leather armor, bronze and later steel helmets, with a spear/pole arm or a sheild with a short sword. Known to be able to carey all his gear and rations and march 20 miles a day for extended periods of time. Crossbowmen had preiodic target practices. The whole army had field trainings in amushes, small squad tactics, night fighting and different formation training, So poorly trained? I beg your pardon.
edit/ if Qin had 20 million population, 5 faimilys of 6 person each, they can easily have a well trained standing army of 600,000+ men
Last edited:
solarz
Brigadier
+1
It's really sad how so many people buy into the propaganda myth of the Chinese military relying on large numbers of poorly trained peasants.
Fortunately, the members at sinodefenceforum are far better informed!
Yeah, eastern militaries have a very different culture than western ones. The scale of the campaigns and battles were very different. Take, the Japanese invasion of Korea at the end of the 15th century, or what I would call the first Asian world war; Japan had an invasion force of 150K men, and the Korean defenders had a force of around 80K. While the Chinese relieve force, an army of ~60K. These are peak strength numbers and not the total number committed in the campaign.
Compared to the Spanish armada, which was considered the largest army in Europe can muster an invasion force of 18K men and an additional 30K men; while the English had an army of around 8K men. The English fleet was 34 (21 galleons) warships with 163 armed merchantmen and the Spanish fleet was 22 Galleons with 108 armed merchantmen. In comparison, Hideyoshi mobilized 2000 ships to ferry his troops over. This is similar sized fleet to the one that ferried the Kamikazied Yuan invasion of Japan at ~1500 large ships and 150K men. And Asian ships are not small either, being in the 200-400 tonnes mark similar to galleons.
The Japanese invasion was broken into 7 divisions, with the smallest being 11K men, while the largest being 30K men; The main Ming intervention body was 40K men -> scales are very different. The reason why I brought up the Asian world war is that, normally, Chinese military history does not document campaign details, but since the Ming, Jurkens, Koreans and Japanese were all a part of the war, you have for an instance collaborative history from different sides and a multitude of angles.
The battle of Seoul shows how proficient each side is at war 40K allied force sieged 20K japanese, where the Allied Ming forces, had special operation troops infiltrate the Japanese held city, to burn the primary grain stores to starve the Japanese – forces, fighting in a foreign land with a different language behind enemy lines to take out specific targets, in a coordinated attack points to a well-trained and disciplined force. With 200 artillery piece bombardment and firing poison gas rockets, disguised Ming troop entered the city and was ambushed and beaten back by the Japanese. Upon a determined allied assault, the Japanese fell back to predefined positions, and the allied force, left a deliberate opening to let the Japanese retreat form the fortified locations; having set up ambushes along the way.
In Eastern warfare, never does one battle dictate the outcome of a war; where in the West, until WW1; a war can be lost on an afternoon.
Kurt
Junior Member
I make no claim on training standards. Take a different perspective, training for violence can start in early childhood and exclude other specializations. That's quite typical for a nobility of warriors, be it Spartans, later day samurai (not ashigaru), Spartans or European knights (not sergeants). There are full time specialists, ther are trained specialists and there can be little trained supporters.´The Spartan army consisted mostly of light armed helots who supported the Spartans, perioici and later mercenaries or freed former helots.
In Eastern Asia the Chinese early on invented the wheelbarrow. It's logistics that make or break army size and in Europe you have to take into account the prodigous amount of grain consumed by riding and transport animals during a campaign. This results in a corresponding army size and campaign structure. Reduce per one horse and kep in mind that a rider needs several horses and you get at least 4 infantrymen per horse, not even conting all the mules and donkeys. Thus a typical European army that was heavily dependent on equids could more than quadruple with Chinese wheelbarrows.
It's likely that there exist wrong self perceptions and prejudices on all sides of this landmass.
Let's try to find some details, how could 600,000 men communicate to do something in an organized manner?
How did they feed? The handcart idea was tried in the American West as well and did not convince.
I do still have doubts that the mentioned numbers of Chinese armies ar accurate. Can you please show some real research on how they handled maneuver and communication? From European experience they must have operated as several smaller independent armies in one theater of operations, but they might have pulled it off by having "their battles" as close as possible. Other people did the same by dividing forces under independent commanders.
Before this discussion turns into a bashing contest of nitwits, look at Portuguese Macao. How were the early Portuguese able to acquire and hold the harbour when China was still perceived far from inferior to Western Europe? What impact did this exchange have on China? Compare it to the older accounts of contact between China and Rome, the Byzantine Empire and Rome and the Muslim conquerors and Han China.