Alexander VS Qin dynasty

Regarding the hypothetical magic battlefield, I think it depends very much on what the battlefield is like and whether Qin stands to fight or tries to conduct a mobile battle. The most formidable part of Macedonian army is undoubtedly the Phalanx.

In a stand up fight, the Macedonian Phalanx is essentially impossible to resist from the front when on even ground. Ranks of crossbowmen that Qin could deploy probably won't make a huge amount of difference as the Phalanx is 12 or 18 ranks deep, and each rank is well armored and protected. Those in the front rank would enjoy bronze body armor and greaves, while those in the back would have laminated linen armor. Overlapping hoplon shields would offer excellent protection against darts and there would be no easy way to deprive a phalanxman of his protection.

So if 30K macedonians fights 30K Qin troops in a small, level battlefield, and the flanks of the Macedonian phalanx can't be turned, then I would say the Macedonians would conqueror. I suspect 30K Macedonians can probably defeat a much larger number of Qin troops in this scenerio.

However, Phalanx is also incapable of dealing with broken ground, uneven slopes, and other geographical conditions that makes it hard for a body of fast walking men to maintain very close formation. Iy is also incapable of dealing readily with having its flank turned. Roman legions ultimately crushed Macedon in a decisive battle where the sides are evenly match in number of men by drawing the Phalanx to battle on uneven sloping ground, exploiting the difficulty parts of phalanx has in holding formation on rough ground, drawing one part of the phalanx forward while the other is stuck on broken ground, turn the flank of the forward part of phalanx and defeating it from behind. So if Alexander is forced to fight a well handled force of Qin troops on sloping and broken ground, Qin forces would have the opportunity to do what the Romans did to Philip of Macedon and turn the flank of the Phalanx to crush it.

If the Qins do not stand to fight on small confined battlefield, but continue to skirmesh with Alexander, then it becomes a case of can Alexander's skirmeshers hold off Qin forces. Alexander's skirmeshing forces are formidable, being a combined arms force of heavy and light calvary, supported by light infantry that moves with calvary. I don't know how good Qin skirmeshers really were compared to the Macedonians. But if Macedonians lose their skirmeshers the phalanx would be in deep trouble as it would easily have its flanks turned.

chuck731 said:

Regarding the hypothetical magic battlefield, I think it depends very much on what the battlefield is like and whether Qin stands to fight or tries to conduct a mobile battle. The most formidable part of Macedonian army is undoubtedly the Phalanx.

In a stand up fight, the Macedonian Phalanx is essentially impossible to resist from the front when on even ground. Ranks of crossbowmen that Qin could deploy probably won't make a huge amount of difference as the Phalanx is 12 or 18 ranks deep, and each rank is well armored and protected. Those in the front rank would enjoy bronze body armor and greaves, while those in the back would have laminated linen armor. Overlapping hoplon shields would offer excellent protection against darts and there would be no easy way to deprive a phalanxman of his protection.

So if 30K macedonians fights 30K Qin troops in a small, level battlefield, and the flanks of the Macedonian phalanx can't be turned, then I would say the Macedonians would conqueror. I suspect 30K Macedonians can probably defeat a much larger number of Qin troops in this scenerio.

However, Phalanx is also incapable of dealing with broken ground, uneven slopes, and other geographical conditions that makes it hard for a body of fast walking men to maintain very close formation. Iy is also incapable of dealing readily with having its flank turned. Roman legions ultimately crushed Macedon in a decisive battle where the sides are evenly match in number of men by drawing the Phalanx to battle on uneven sloping ground, exploiting the difficulty parts of phalanx has in holding formation on rough ground, drawing one part of the phalanx forward while the other is stuck on broken ground, turn the flank of the forward part of phalanx and defeating it from behind. So if Alexander is forced to fight a well handled force of Qin troops on sloping and broken ground, Qin forces would have the opportunity to do what the Romans did to Philip of Macedon and turn the flank of the Phalanx to crush it.

If the Qins do not stand to fight on small confined battlefield, but continue to skirmesh with Alexander, then it becomes a case of can Alexander's skirmeshers hold off Qin forces. Alexander's skirmeshing forces are formidable, being a combined arms force of heavy and light calvary, supported by light infantry that moves with calvary. I don't know how good Qin skirmeshers really were compared to the Macedonians. But if Macedonians lose their skirmeshers the phalanx would be in deep trouble as it would easily have its flanks turned.

Click to expand...

Yes, you've just about covered the major points this thread had been hashing over.

Why we can't say with any certainty, I am of the opinion that the Qin crossbow bolts would have easily penetrated Macedonian armor.

Remember that bronze is expensive. There is no way Alexander could have afforded to equip 30k men with . Instead, the most common armor for foot soldiers was made of . The skirmishers, of course, would be completely unarmored.

Qin bronze-iron bolts would have had no problem punching through the linothorax, even at long range. Even the bronze plate "muscle cuirass" would not very effective once the range is shortened.

There is also an inherent caveat with your chosen number of 30k. That would represent almost the entirety of Alexander's forces, compared to only one division of the Qin military.

Finally, while tactics would certainly play a decisive role in such a battle, it is pretty much impossible to argue who has the better battlefield tactics. Both armies are composed of professional veterans and lead by competent generals.

If you can read Chinese, this is good for a laugh:

UK's Channel 4 documentary New Secrets of the Terracotta Warriors will be broadcast tomorrow night.


"Scientists reproduced arrowheads from 200BC when the Terracotta Army was built and tested them with a crossbow of that period.

The arrows easily went through the armour of the era, lethally piercing the body, reported The Sunday Times.

Historian Mike Loades, an expert in ancient weapons, told the newspaper: 'These crossbows were two millennia ahead of their time.' "


Alexander VS Qin dynasty = Somalia VS USA

Finito, yes?

Speeder said:

UK's Channel 4 documentary New Secrets of the Terracotta Warriors will be broadcast tomorrow night.


"Scientists reproduced arrowheads from 200BC when the Terracotta Army was built and tested them with a crossbow of that period.

The arrows easily went through the armour of the era, lethally piercing the body, reported The Sunday Times.

Historian Mike Loades, an expert in ancient weapons, told the newspaper: 'These crossbows were two millennia ahead of their time.' "


Alexander VS Qin dynasty = Somalia VS USA

Finito, yes?

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

This should be interesting

It would look like this:

A sketch from 1502 by the mercenary Dolstein, how a small professional army of landsknecht mercenaries employed by the Swedish king slaughters a much larger army of insurgent Swedish peasants. Note, the peasants do have military training. Long spears can deflect crossbow bolts (The fencing master Thalhofer explains this). The ranks of crossbowmen able to shoot at once are limited. In case of Alexander's Macedonians, they did have a strong shield instead of a cuirass in front of them.
At the time Alexander reached Macedon he pretty much had defeated all east of Qin and integrated them into his military system. Pray tell how the Eastern nomads were never a military problem since the days of the Qin because of the crossbow.
As usual people tend to forget how similar the military solutions of both armies were. The Macedonians like the Qin militarised the population of an economic and cultural backwater and turned it into renown fighting forces by very similar means, combining long spears with ranged weapons and a powerful cavalry.
The Macedonians did know crossbows as powerful as the Chinese counterpart and had improved on them with torsion weapons. At least during the later days of the Roman Empire these torsion weapons were also the size of handheld devices that outperformed crossbows.
Do you have serious doubts that after the conquest of Persia there was a lack of equipping an elite expeditionary force(that needed to cross the desterts and fight a numerous enemy) in most outstanding fashion from all parts of this vast empire?

Reading these comments gives the impression of an inferiority complex that must be compensated by boastful behaviour. The Chinese military was never that outstanding, they did have major troubles fighting their neighbours and expanding into Central Asia from a much smaller power base. Never did any Chinese emperor or imperial general set out with similar means as Alexander and achieve a similar result until. Best comparisons would be Genghis Khan and chairman Mao(founding modern China). So the military organization of the Macedonians must have been superb, seeing what they did achieve.
You constantly neglect that technology and weapon systems gives only marginal advantage over trained manpower. It seems to be a way of claiming a pseudo-historic Chinese supremacy over the most outstanding single conqueror in Western history and thus somehow over the whole West.

pikes fencing crossbow bolts is something I'd like to see demonstrated in a real life experiment. any volunteers?

Re: Alexander VS Qin dynastyto

Kurt said:

It would look like this:
View attachment 8766
A sketch from 1502 by the mercenary Dolstein, how a small professional army of landsknecht mercenaries employed by the Swedish king slaughters a much larger army of insurgent Swedish peasants. Note, the peasants do have military training. Long spears can deflect crossbow bolts (The fencing master Thalhofer explains this). The ranks of crossbowmen able to shoot at once are limited. In case of Alexander's Macedonians, they did have a strong shield instead of a cuirass in front of them.
At the time Alexander reached Macedon he pretty much had defeated all east of Qin and integrated them into his military system. Pray tell how the Eastern nomads were never a military problem since the days of the Qin because of the crossbow.
As usual people tend to forget how similar the military solutions of both armies were. The Macedonians like the Qin militarised the population of an economic and cultural backwater and turned it into renown fighting forces by very similar means, combining long spears with ranged weapons and a powerful cavalry.
The Macedonians did know crossbows as powerful as the Chinese counterpart and had improved on them with torsion weapons. At least during the later days of the Roman Empire these torsion weapons were also the size of handheld devices that outperformed crossbows.
Do you have serious doubts that after the conquest of Persia there was a lack of equipping an elite expeditionary force(that needed to cross the desterts and fight a numerous enemy) in most outstanding fashion from all parts of this vast empire?

Reading these comments gives the impression of an inferiority complex that must be compensated by boastful behaviour. The Chinese military was never that outstanding, they did have major troubles fighting their neighbours and expanding into Central Asia from a much smaller power base. Never did any Chinese emperor or imperial general set out with similar means as Alexander and achieve a similar result until. Best comparisons would be Genghis Khan and chairman Mao(founding modern China). So the military organization of the Macedonians must have been superb, seeing what they did achieve.
You constantly neglect that technology and weapon systems gives only marginal advantage over trained manpower. It seems to be a way of claiming a pseudo-historic Chinese supremacy over the most outstanding single conqueror in Western history and thus somehow over the whole West.

Click to expand...

Please explain this to me. If you were an emperor of China in ancient times, where would you direct your conquest? North? It's The Siberia. South? Endless jungle. Very little realistic benefit. East? It's the ocean. West? Endless desert. So, where would you go? The ancient Chinese emperors had conquered all the known lands they could see. They didn't have satellites and planes to scout for them and they had no way of knowing there was land beyond what they could see. So where would you go? Sending your troops to endless expeditions that would go no where and achieve nothing and in the end, destroying your empire? Chinese emperors were wiser than that. They had conquered everything that would benefit them and stopped because beyond that point the cost outweighs the profit. Simply as that. Alexander, on the other hand, started out much smaller and knew he had all those exotic land they wanted to conquer.

I think one of the biggest mistakes that you have made is to assume that China started out the size that it is. Then no large scale military expeditions, no major expansions, etc etc etc. that is a huge mistake as China started out as a small nation by the yellow river. It was exactly the kind of military expansion that you talk about that made China what it is today. I have painstakingly listed the size changes of China throughout the years in previous posts to illustrate the scale of expansion In ancient China. Once you appreciate the scale of expansion done in ancient China, you will then understand how effective the ancient Chinese military was. Military expansion in Qin, Han, Tang and Ming dynasties all match the size and scale of military expansion done by Alexander. You have chosen to ignore the info that is against your argument.

Historians have concluded that the largest empire can only be maintained by effective communication. And they found that 14 days is the upper limit for such communication between the capital city and outer edge of the empire. Thus, the largest size of an empire should be a circle with the capital city in the center and going out 14 days of horse ride to all directions. Anything larger can not be maintained. China had achieved this size in ancient time and could not expand because they could not effectively maintain control. That is why some of those military expansion by the Chinese is not shown in the current day maps, just like the modern day map does not show Alexander's conquest.

The only difference between Alexander and China is that Alexander could only do it in short spurts. His empire fell apart immediately after his death. His downfall was exactly his expansion exhausted his empire. China, on the other hand, was able to achieve the similar kind of expansion while maintaining their gain of land and effectively integrate the conquered land. The Chinese rulers had a much deeper understanding of what conquest is. Instead of simply showing military dominance and nothing else, they understood that military was only a tool for their ultimate goal to rule the known world. That was why China throughout the years never focuses exclusively on military. Once they had achieved their military goal, they pull back and let the civilians do the job. In fact, they have been able to do it so effectively that most people automatically believe that China started out this big. This has been deeply engraved in Chinese philosophy. Somehow, this has been seen by someone as a weakness. The western way of simple military conquest never worked and never will. Simply look at all the large western empires and how long each one of them actually lasted. You will get an idea how ineffective this way of conquest is.

If you truly want to understand Chinese military in ancient times, I suggest you get a little bit more familiar with such topic. From what you have written, it is clear that you have very little knowledge on such topic. What you know about the Chinese history in general and Chinese military history in particular is pretty much that of an average Joe in the west. And because of that, I don't think you are qualified to make judgement on Chinese military ops in ancient times.

Kurt said:

It would look like this:
View attachment 8766

The Macedonians like the Qin militarised the population of an economic and cultural backwater and turned it into renown fighting forces by very similar means, combining long spears with ranged weapons and a powerful cavalry.
The Macedonians did know crossbows as powerful as the Chinese counterpart and had improved on them with torsion weapons. At least during the later days of the Roman Empire these torsion weapons were also the size of handheld devices that outperformed crossbows.
Do you have serious doubts that after the conquest of Persia there was a lack of equipping an elite expeditionary force(that needed to cross the desterts and fight a numerous enemy) in most outstanding fashion from all parts of this vast empire?

Click to expand...

I don't know much about how King Philips II turned Macedon into a military machine. I get the impression that the Macedonian reforms were more military tactical reforms, whereas the Qin reforms were more political and economic structural reforms. Before the Qin embarked on the campaign of conquest, between 361BC to 338BC, Qin spent decades completely reforming the government on Legalist meritocratic principles, dramatically improving agricultural productivity with large scale irrigation and water control projects. Qin wasn't just building an army, they were transforming the entire country so it can sustain an army of hundreds of thousands for a long and grueling campaign of conquest.

Look what tiny Mongolia did. They are in the same position.

China simply never had a conquering military except in civil wars. Conquest endangered the political power and staying away from the center of power endandgered it as well. That's a major issue of political capability you have to concede to the Macedonians.

I know, I have offended your pride, but concede before you go on a rampage that China was not an overaching military machine. Their military was not bad. They functioned within an world order that broke down with the many modern invasions by sea, of which the latest one was by Japan.

The Macedonians had units composed of men, who had literally spent a lifetime in arms and were raising their grandchildren in the army camp. You don't grow old on a wide array of battlefields with different military traditions without very competent use of arms.

Just calculate or really look at an old fencing manual, through the ages they talk about defending against missiles this way:
100J kinetic energy, 100g projectile weight, equals 45m/s or 162km/h. That's catchable you see it coming.

The Macedonian reforms were a culmination of ongoing reforms of Greek warfare. They did change the economy of warfighting and by successful warfighting the economy of Macedon under Philip. These reforms, introducing a combined arms force that included pikemen was at the core of later Hellenistic warfare. This Hellenistic school of war includes Hannibal, Pyrrhos (who was regarded highly by the ancients because of his competence especially in sieges), Alexander the Great and many more. Already the ancient Romans had historical fiction on how they would fight Alexander and came to the same verdict as the forumites that they were so much superior (not because of their weapons, but their leadership structure). It is a difficult question to answer, Alexander was raised a king of the army on many battlefields since his early years, experience most of his would-be competitors lacked. Nor did they integrate his philosophical schooling by renown teachers with the highly developed military machine at his personal disposal. Alexander was an outstanding man, who combined a number of capabilities into an effective whole, that not only vanquished foes on the battlefield, but in the very many other cases of opposition. For centuries he was the role model for rulers from India and Central Asia to the Atlantic coast. Cities were named after him and many called their children Alexander in his memory. Which Qin emperor was judged his equal?
What the brilliance of Alexander could not achieve, was an as long lasting empire as that of Qin. Conquest is not everything and in the administrative field Alexander clearly had many faults.

Kurt said:

Look what tiny Mongolia did. They are in the same position.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

China simply never had a conquering military except in civil wars. Conquest endangered the political power and staying away from the center of power endandgered it as well. That's a major issue of political capability you have to concede to the Macedonians.

Click to expand...

Oh Kurt, why must we go through this again and again? China having no interest in conquering desserts or are happy with an offer of earth and water as a tribute is not related to it's fighting power. Mogolians conquered the known world with Islamic and Chinese siege engineers and aux troops. Honestly, what can horse back mounted archers to to a fortified town?

Kurt said:

I know, I have offended your pride, but concede before you go on a rampage that China was not an overaching military machine. Their military was not bad. They functioned within an world order that broke down with the many modern invasions by sea, of which the latest one was by Japan.

Click to expand...

I don't know if you understand history or not, all ancient/old civilizations experienced multiple successful invasions except for Britain (only by the romans and the normans) and Japan. You can literally count dozen of times France, Germany, Macedonia, Greece, Italy etc had been successfully invaded or sacked. It doesn't mean much, China had only been successfully been invaded by the Mongols, the Manchus - which is not bad in any comparison.

Kurt said:

The Macedonians had units composed of men, who had literally spent a lifetime in arms and were raising their grandchildren in the army camp. You don't grow old on a wide array of battlefields with different military traditions without very competent use of arms.

Just calculate or really look at an old fencing manual, through the ages they talk about defending against missiles this way:
100J kinetic energy, 100g projectile weight, equals 45m/s or 162km/h. That's catchable you see it coming.

Click to expand...

I don't think you understand the Waring states, especially that of Qin. Every male in Qin is a warrior, every female is an auxiliary. and the warring state lasted for around 200 years. Literally if you were born in Qin, you are destined to die on the battlefield for Qin. You grew up dreaming of taking the heads of your enemies for favor, and is taught every aspect of warfare.

How is this less than any military tradition in the world?

I would like to see you catch a 45m/s arrow. The guys at myth busters deemed it ridiculously for a ninja to catch one. Now here goes the question, there is one of you, and there is 10 arrows heading at you, which one do you dodge or catch?

Also, welsh long bows were around 100J too, and so are japanese yumi; do you know why the french knights or japanese samurai werent able to dodge or catch these arrows? unless, you believe that mecdonians had some secrets which the medieval knights and samurai whom trained all their life in warfare do not know.

Kurt said:

The Macedonian reforms were a culmination of ongoing reforms of Greek warfare. They did change the economy of warfighting and by successful warfighting the economy of Macedon under Philip. These reforms, introducing a combined arms force that included pikemen was at the core of later Hellenistic warfare. This Hellenistic school of war includes Hannibal, Pyrrhos (who was regarded highly by the ancients because of his competence especially in sieges), Alexander the Great and many more. Already the ancient Romans had historical fiction on how they would fight Alexander and came to the same verdict as the forumites that they were so much superior (not because of their weapons, but their leadership structure). It is a difficult question to answer, Alexander was raised a king of the army on many battlefields since his early years, experience most of his would-be competitors lacked. Nor did they integrate his philosophical schooling by renown teachers with the highly developed military machine at his personal disposal. Alexander was an outstanding man, who combined a number of capabilities into an effective whole, that not only vanquished foes on the battlefield, but in the very many other cases of opposition. For centuries he was the role model for rulers from India and Central Asia to the Atlantic coast. Cities were named after him and many called their children Alexander in his memory. Which Qin emperor was judged his equal?

Click to expand...

Well, Qinshihuang had an empire called Qina, or better translated a China that is named after him that survives to this day. is there a country which name is based on Alexander that have survived? Obviously, that doesn't mean that Qinshihuang is a great man, nor does that mean that Alexander is a great man because there are a few cities named after him. BTW, Qinshihuang also had a city named after him against Chinese naming convention traditions - and the place is called Qinhuangdao.

Honestly, this adds no value to the discussion. Every Asian nation choose to emulate the Chinese way and aspired to be China - from Vietnam to Japan. Every Asian general wished to be a BaiQi, Every Islamic generaly wants to be Saladin; both of whom had not lost a single battle and have probably vanquished more enemies than Alexander would be capable of just because of the population imbalance between the east and the west.

I fail to see how this makes Alex better.

Kurt said:

What the brilliance of Alexander could not achieve, was an as long lasting empire as that of Qin. Conquest is not everything and in the administrative field Alexander clearly had many faults.

Click to expand...

//edit

BTW, this was Xia, china proper originally,



What you see in China today is all conquest by military might and assimulation

Under the Qing green banner army and the 8 banner army with minorities armies, China became:



and if you consider tribute and vassal states



It would be retarded to think that China did not expand its borders. It is already at the limit with the Siberian tundra to the north, 1st island chain to the east and south, Himalayas mountain range to the west. What is of value for conquest, when the known world is already conquered?