Alexander VS Qin dynasty

Kurt said:

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

Click to expand...

No, they were not in the same position. Chinese military was based on a sedantary peasant farming society. China has never been much of a nomadic "horsy" pastoral society, despite allusions to it in many ancient Chinese military and historic works of romance. Mongol military was based on a nomadic life stock based mobile society. Each of their societies and cultures provides the customs, skills, and organization to enable their military to prosper in their own geographic environement, but not in the other's.


An army of peasant soldiers from a sedentary river valley based culture would lack the expertise to support mass as well as the skill and background to sustain mobility in steppes of Inner Asia. It would need a logistic tail unsupportable prior to the 19th century to just to survive in this environment.

An elite Chinese raiding force might make a superficially impressive foray into such an environment as Chinese army did during Han dynasty by going all the way to the Aral Sea in modern Uzbekistan. But it required unsustainably herculean logistic effort, as well as extensive buying off of local potentates, not to mention massive outlays for enlisting local mercenaries. It's a thing too costly to repeat more often than once or twice during a very strong dynasty, and certainly too costly to sustain for any length of time even by the strongest dynasty.

A large Chinese occupation army could not live off the land; a large Chinese army of conquest could not match the mobility of the locals, and would simply be absorbed into the environment like rain drops on parched dirt if they were to try. This is why ancient China had no prayer of sustained expansion north westwards in way similar to what the Mongols had done. Not because they lacked fighting prowess in the combat environment in which Chinese military tradition was developed, but because it required crossing vast stretches which is highly unsuited to Chinese military tradition.

But the land over which the Mongols expanded so quickly was precsely the ones highly suited to Mogol military tradition. If you look past the superficially impressive Mongol invincibility, you would see the Mongol’s westward expansion into central Europe and Western Asia brought to a screeching halt by a head on collision with geographic suitability, just as any Chinese expansion into Mongolia would have been stopped.

When the Mongols reached Ukraine, and Syria, they left the steppe land that could have supported the Mongol hords of horses. When they ventured into western Ukraine, they even left land that was suitable for massed cavalry maneuver. Four or five horses to a man, and the ability to live literally off of the horses (Mongol soldiers can eat and drink nothing but horses' milk and horse's blood for a month), was secret of both the awesome Mongol strategic mobility (Mongol armies' 2000 mile forced march to attack Northern Persia remain the longest lmarch into battle by far in recorded military history, and was done 10 times faster than Alexander's march from Persia to India), as well as the uncanny tacitical capacity to call up timely concentration of overwhelming force at precisely the focal point of a battle, despite overall numerical inferiority. When the mongols became robbed of the ability to support a concentration of horses to support their strategic and tactical mobility, their initial expansion also sputtered and came to an end.

Contrary to what some other people have said here, Mongol forces were later able to adapt, and thus remain formidable forces in central and south Asia for upwards of another 300 years. But they were merely formidable. Their invincibility was never again regained once they left the boundaries of "horsy" steppe territory on which they evolved their superior military system.

Chinese and Mongol armies were both confined by geography. The fact that the Chinese army were not able to expand Chinese domination into inner Asia is attributable to the same causes as that which stopped the Mongols at the border of central Europe and Western Asia. Neither mongol nor Chinese militaries were ultimately able to break the confines of the geography in which their respective military, social and economic traditions were formed.

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.

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.

Click to expand...

Kurt, Vesicles was absolutely right. You have no more knowledge of Chinese history than the average Joe in the west. Your comments about China are almost all completely wrong, yet you simply ignore that fact.

The Mongol conquest was an extreme outlier in the history of pre-modern warfare. The mongols may have had a small population, but they had more (and better) horses than almost every civilization they encountered combined. The mobility of the mongol army in the 13th century was unmatched until the advent of mechanized warfare in the 20th century.

Furthermore, the Mongols did *not* hold on to their conquests. Instead, they split into four independent political entities, each ruling their own empire. That is *exactly* the situation Vesicles described.

You talk about how the Macedonian soldiers spent a lifetime in arms, but you ignored repeated posts that point out by the time of the Qin unification, China had been at war for over 200 years!

Logistically, the Qin could field armies 10 times the size of a typical Macedonian army.

Technologically, the Qin had crossbows that far out-classed any that existed elsewhere in the world. Not until Medieval Europe would the West develop crossbows of comparable strength. By the 3rd century BC, China had already mastered the blast furnace, something that, again, would not be seen in the west until the Middle Ages.

On any tangible measure, the Macedonian empire was no match for the Qin empire. This has been pointed out and proven numerous times in this thread, but you just ignore those facts and keep repeating your own erroneous or irrelevant points.

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.

Click to expand...

LOL, don't get ahead of yourself. First of all, just because we disagree on something, it doesn't mean my "pride" is offended. I don't take these discussions personally unless someone start attacking me personally. So "what you know that you did" was wrong. I would suggest you leave the personal attack out of the discussion. First, you accused the people against your argument to have inferiority syndrome, then you accused me of "feeling offended". If anything, it only shows how desperate you are. Be calm. If you are as confident and as "superior" as you claim to be, stay calm and stay on topic. Stop analyzing others.

Ok, let's get back to the discussion. I think this discussion is fruitless because you lack the most basic understanding of Chinese history. And that is a fact because all your statement about Chinese history and ancient Chinese military is superficial at best. All empty statements that come out of either your own imagination or common misconception in the west. To this day, you have not presented one single piece of evidence to support your assessment of the ancient Chinese military. Only empty statements. This contrasts sharply to your understanding on the Ancient Greece and Alexander the Great. On such topic, you presented concrete evidence. So it is clear as day that you know how to argue, but simply don't have the knowledge to discuss Chinese history. So I ask you: what gives you the confidence to make judgement on the Chinese military while possessing so little knowledge of it?

About the Mongols. That was the exact point I was trying to make. They started out small. So the expansion looked amazing because they got room to grow. Greece was the same. China, on the other hand, already did their growing early. That was my point. Thanks for supporting my point.

I was 5 feet and 4 inches when I was 16 and got to 5feet and 9 inches by the time I was 17. Yao Ming was already 7 feet and 3 inches by he was 16 and only grew 2-3 inches ever since. So in that sense, I am bigger and greater than Yao Ming since at similar age, my expansion of height is so much more dramatic than Yao Ming. This is basically what you are arguing.

Kurt said:

Reading these comments gives the impression of an inferiority complex that must be compensated by boastful behaviour. .

Click to expand...

I believe you are right. However, just because someone exhibits symptomes of an inferiority complex doesn't mean he is, or what he is bragging about is, really inferior in any relevent way.

I think your assertion of actual sustained inferiority of Chinese military organization, equipment, doctrine, and acomplishment over 2000 years is based on some very questionable deductions.

Kurt said:

. 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...

Please evaluate what the following facts say about just how invincible and flexible the military system built by Alexander really was:

1. The non-professional peasant farmer army of the Roman Republic successfully stood off the professional Hellenistic army of none other than Pyrrhus the highly regarded himself, during the very first clash between Macedonian phalanx and the Latin legion. The Romans retreated in good order, but only after inflicting such losses upon Pyrrus that the expression "Pyrrhic victory" came down 2400 years all the way to us to mean a tactical victory so costly that it resulted in strategic defeat.

2. The non-professional peasant farmer legions of Roman Republic would go on to vanquish almost every hellenistic army based on the Macedonian phalanx in the next 150 years, and would ultimately subjugate virtually the entire Hellenistic world through military conquest.

Kurt said:

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...

Uhhh...... Ever wonder how the name "China" came about? The initial English spelling of "Qin" was indeed "Chin", hence the name China and Chinese. The Qin empire left such a strong impression in the Western world that the ancestors of the Western civilization named the Middle Kingdom "China". I don't see foreigners to the West named any Western nation after Alexander.

We have to thank empire of Qin for almost everything about China. Its political system lasted 2000 years (the first Chinese dynasty that eliminated slavery). All the measuring systems, angle, weight, length, area, size of a wheel, etc were all originally Qin system. Even the language spoken by 1.5 billion people in the world was originally spoken by Qin people. During the Zhou dynasty, people from different states all had different systems, even including languages. once Qin united China into a centralized govn't, all the other systems were abandoned and only Qin system was allowed to be used. Simplified systems made communication much more effective, thus developing economy and culture. As such, not only China is China because of Qin, the various cultures in the entire eastern Asia all modeled after the military, economic and social systems left in place by Qin. What is the legacy of Alexander, other than what could be found on some ancient maps, in songs and poems, etc?

Sooooo. you asked "Which Qin emperor was judged his equal?". My answer would be none. the influence of the Qin emperors was so much above Alexander's, there is no comparison.

It is beyond utterly silly to argue the etymology of the word china shows the great comparative power on international stage of Qin dynasty. China was not even a Chinese name. It was a name Europeans bestowed upon the land of Han based on very sparse knowledge of what it is, and incorrect information about who was still in charge there, during the Han dynasty. Han dynasty, btw, was infinitely more influential on the international stage than Qin of the shihuangdi ever was. Han dynasty came as close as china would ever do to replicating something like an alexandrean conquest by sending military expedition all the to modern day kazakhastan and uzebekistan, a stone's throw from borders of Europe proper. If an more appropriate name was to be given to china based on its own name at the height of its comparative power on the international stage, it should be Hania, not china.

If the etymology of the word china shows the greatness of Qin, then perhaps the Entonmology of the common name for native Americans points to vast power of India.

As it turns out, china was known in Europe during much of early modern era as cathay. Cathay weren't even a reference to any one person or people who modern Chinese would consider to have been someone important in their own history. It was a reference to a steppe tribe that later migrated west. So what does that say about what is in a name?

Unlike the name china, which was not Chinese but given to china mostly out of ignorance, many places named Alexandria was so named by Alexander himself. The fact that he named something after himself and the name stuck for 2000 years, despite subsequent chaos, conflicts, changes of rulership, says a thing or two about the regard he is held by posterity. The city Alexander founded with the intention of setting up his capital there retains the name he gave it to this day.

The Capitol city of Qin shihuangdi kept the same name all the way through the ages to this day?

I would have to say even before his name received a posthumous boost from European conquest of all of the known world in the modern era, far more of the world would have judged the name Alexander to have been far above the name of Qin, than the other way around.

Descendants of the world of Alexander certainly did a more bang up job of spreading the culture influence of the world of Alexander To all corners of the earth than the descendants of Qin did the culture influence of Qin.

- Originally Posted by Kurt
I know, I have offended your pride, but concede before you go on a rampage that China was not an overaching military machine.

There are different ways to interpret the description "overarching military machine". A reasonable interpretation is a society that is highly regimented, highly militarized, fully mobilized and particularly focused on waging war.

In this Qin china was an exceedingly overarching military machine. It was probably not quite as militarized as extreme city states characterized by Sparta, but it was probably as fully as or more fully militarized than any large state in Mediterranean world, the middle east, or Indian subcontinent.

chuck731 said:

Descendants of the world of Alexander certainly did a more bang up job of spreading the culture influence of the world of Alexander To all corners of the earth than the descendants of Qin did the culture influence of Qin.

Click to expand...

Chuck, We are all entitled to our opinions, but why do you think that Alexander/decendents did a better job at promoting their culture?

Dominantly, I would say there are now dominant in no particular order:

- Sino Culture
- Slavic Culture
- Indus Culture
- Islamic Culture
- European Culture
- American Culture

The fact is that grecco/roman/byzantine culture ceased to exist in its original or even singular form. Most of what that is carried over is renascence rediscovery and interpretation of the past. e.g. people have a perception that Alex conquered India, well he campaigned there for two years and won a few battles, but the land was not conquered as large parts of India was still free and was able to raise armies after armies to challenge the satrapies.

You can make the case that european culture and therefore american culture is descendant of Grecco-Roman culture and therefore a part of Alex's.

In terms of population, there is no way that European culture extends more than the billions of Chinese, Indians and Muslims around the world. In terms of achievement can be subject to a lot of debate. But this is an english forum, with users generally well versed in the western education, hence familiarity of the European renaissance.

There are 740 million people in Europe. There are 529 million people in North America.

There are 1.4 billion people in China alone.

Whose culture is more widespread?