Alexander VS Qin dynasty
- Thread starter handifei880210
- Start date
solarz
Brigadier
Indeed, even in the Bronze Age, iron was far more commonly available than bronze:
Primitive iron was hard but brittle, making it a poor choice for making weapons. Unless, of course, we're talking about arrows and bolts: no need to care about brittleness then.
If you doubt 600K military force was possible during that era, then you overlook the fact that similar sized armed forces was repeated deployed by the Roman republic and Roman Empire during roughly the same period.
During Roman civil war between Octavian and Marc Antony in the 1st century BC, the two sides deployed a combined 65 legions, which amounted to about 600K troops, evenly split between heavy legionary infantry and a combined arms auxiliary force of heavy and light infantry, archers and cavalry. So the Roman republic deployed a total 600K troops at a time when it didn't even reach half of the full size and population the later Roman Empire would reach. The largest Roman military force recorded to have to operated under a single tactical command would be about 10-15 legions consisting of 100-150K troops. This sized force was seen many times during 1st century BC, 1st and 2nd centuries AD, during such wars as the Spartacus revolt, the Caesarian civil war, Tiberius's operations in the Bulkans, defences on the Rhein and Denube, and the crushing the Bar Kokbar revolt in Israel. The largest Roman single field army known to have been wiped out in one engagement consisted of 8 legions or about 80K troops. So largest single Roman field army must be at least that large. There are recorded instances of armies of 12 legions, although it is not clear to me if all 12 legions were on the same battlefield at the same time.
So in classical world, when the Mediterranean world enjoyed a parity in population with China, western armies were just as large and massive. So the Qin deploying 600K men in its entire military is eminantly believeable.
"Primitive iron was hard but brittle, making it a poor choice for making weapons. Unless, of course, we're talking about arrows and bolts: no need to care about brittleness then."
I guess that you've never tried to fire a crossbow, or make an axe/knife/bodkin out of anything, but the reason that iron took over the world was that it made better weapons and tools! Also, the far greater mass of an iron crossbow bolt will GREATLY reduce it's velocity and effective range! (it's very easy to make excellent bolts out of bamboo) As with all things having to do with Chinese history you have to see it more as propaganda than history!
As to the HUGE numbers of Han crossbowmen, think of (first) it's much easier to teach an untrained peasant to fire in un-aimed Napoleonic volley fire, than teach them how to shoot a bow (why the Mongols won so easily)! and that being said try to imagine that (volley fire) from "thousands" of crossbowmen with the aforesaid iron bolts, it would be tons and tons of iron as a gift to the enemy who would only have to stand back out of range and return fire with bamboo bolts!
I guess that you've never tried to fire a crossbow, or make an axe/knife/bodkin out of anything, but the reason that iron took over the world was that it made better weapons and tools! Also, the far greater mass of an iron crossbow bolt will GREATLY reduce it's velocity and effective range! (it's very easy to make excellent bolts out of bamboo) As with all things having to do with Chinese history you have to see it more as propaganda than history!
As to the HUGE numbers of Han crossbowmen, think of (first) it's much easier to teach an untrained peasant to fire in un-aimed Napoleonic volley fire, than teach them how to shoot a bow (why the Mongols won so easily)! and that being said try to imagine that (volley fire) from "thousands" of crossbowmen with the aforesaid iron bolts, it would be tons and tons of iron as a gift to the enemy who would only have to stand back out of range and return fire with bamboo bolts!
solarz
Brigadier
No, the reason iron took over the world is that it is far more abundant than bronze. In ancient China, farmers were using iron implements while soldiers still fought with bronze weapons.
You need to actually study history instead of firing off assumptions:
BTW, the Mongols did not "win easily" against China. Southern Song was one of the last nations to fall to Mongol conquest. The Mongols spent decades and lost a Khan (Mongke) sieging Song cities.
Firstly, crossbow bolts have different flight characteristics than arrows and will fall at the same rate irrespective of their mass. Second, lighter bolts out of bamboo are easier to become deviated by winds in flight. Thirdly bamboo bolts would not have been effective against armoured opponents.
Fourthly crossbows are never fired un-aimed, even if they are in ranks and files. Chinese crossbows do have sights with distance markings on them to take into account rate of fall in flight. Crossbow have better accuracy than early muskets.
It is easier to fire crossbows at similar demand of accuracy compared to bows. Mongols is a moot point because fighting against them is not heavily dependent on crossbow use. Iron bolts would be much easier to standardise than bamboo bolts. The reason crossbow tech developed in China in the way it was is because China standardised her army very early onwards, which had various advantages.
Chinese history is not propaganda. Events recorded after 770 BC are dated to the year. That is a lot more rigorous than many other civilizations can measure up to.
Last edited:
I think you mistaken steel to iron. Bronze are generally stronger than wrought iron in ancient time with vicker hardness of 60-258 while wrought iron had a vicker hardness of 30-80. The reason for iron to take over bronze in later age was because iron was more readily available and provide sufficient hardness. Also iron is easier to process unlike bronze so it would be easier to build weapons and armour out of iron instead of bronze.
Plus... what to you mean by Chinese history being propaganda? Propaganda of what... a lost empire or what. If you read a bit of history, you know that Chinese dynasty normally ended with bloody rebellion and the such, people of the new dynasty would never want to remember the 'older and evil' dynasty... and if these history are propangada, then what the hell are the chinese trying to teach their young... that Chinese civilization is one big bloody mess?
And like what others had also mentioned... the Mongols didn't win easily... and even after they win, archery is not the only thing that allow them to win, please study a bit more before coming out with such generalise statement.
And it would be pretty funny to compare bamboo arrow to a well make metal tipped arrow... I mean... weight is only part of an equation... aerodynamic properties and design also allow an arrow to fly further, hit harder and had greater penetrating power... all this was already in place as far back as before the Qin dynasty (Qin and not Qing)... and now you as a modern 21 century person had no idea of that simple science?
Last edited:
solarz
Brigadier
Indeed, the Mongol advantage lies in combining excellent archery with even better horsemanship. Their abundance of horses, with every rider keeping several re-mounts, meant a huge advantage both tactically and logistically.
Back to the discussion about Alexander vs. Qin. I think it is reasonable to suppose Qin Empire was comparable to Roman Republic of the 2nd Punic War Era (almost contemporaenous with Qin) in population, economy and military potential. I think as a tactician Alexander was comparable to Hannibal, and the army Alexander took from Persia eastward is if anything significantly weaker than the army Hannibal commanded at battle of Cannae.
The Roman Republic with its Italian traditional and reliable vassal states at the time had a population of about 8-10 million. With the war waging potential this population provided Rome was able to absorbed multiple serious tactical defeat dealt by Hannibal in quick succession, including one diseaster where it lost 80K of its better troops in one battle, and then drag the war on for 15 years, opening multiple secondary fronts to sap the strength of Carthage and block hannible's route of supply and retreat. By refusing to come to battle with hannibal, but keeping an army always on Hannibal's tail and this depriving hannibal of forage everywhere he went, Rome ultimately trapped hannibal for 12 years in the toe of Italy, before eventually ultimately defeating Hannibal in Zama. I suspect if Alexander led his army into Qin territory, even if he was able to inflict some telling intitial tactical victories, he would still be worn down and ultimately defeated in much the same way.
If Alexander makes it to Qin, it would be one army against the war waging potential of a large populous, and disciplined state. If the state is not rash and try to stake all on one battle, then the state will eventually win no matter how good the army is.
The Roman Republic with its Italian traditional and reliable vassal states at the time had a population of about 8-10 million. With the war waging potential this population provided Rome was able to absorbed multiple serious tactical defeat dealt by Hannibal in quick succession, including one diseaster where it lost 80K of its better troops in one battle, and then drag the war on for 15 years, opening multiple secondary fronts to sap the strength of Carthage and block hannible's route of supply and retreat. By refusing to come to battle with hannibal, but keeping an army always on Hannibal's tail and this depriving hannibal of forage everywhere he went, Rome ultimately trapped hannibal for 12 years in the toe of Italy, before eventually ultimately defeating Hannibal in Zama. I suspect if Alexander led his army into Qin territory, even if he was able to inflict some telling intitial tactical victories, he would still be worn down and ultimately defeated in much the same way.
If Alexander makes it to Qin, it would be one army against the war waging potential of a large populous, and disciplined state. If the state is not rash and try to stake all on one battle, then the state will eventually win no matter how good the army is.
Last edited:
solarz
Brigadier
The estimated population of the Qin dynasty circa 210 BC was actually 20 million, more than double that of the contemporary Roman Republic.
While I agree with your conclusion, this kind of approach basically boils down to "home field advantage". Alexander cannot possibly mount an invasion of China, nor can Qin Shihuang possibly mount an invasion of Macedonia. The original premise was more a hypothetical scenario where the two armies magically meet on a battle field.