If Alexander Invade China

Firstly from military weapon perspective, Qin will have an edge over Alex’s soldier, Qin army’s weapon was mass produced in a factory like manner, so weapons and cross bow components were interchangeable and also the metallurgy in China was better to other part of words. Most importantly the crossbow used by Qin was the most sophisticated weapon in the known world, with carefully manufactured trigging mechanism and targeting device.
As for combined arm tactics, China has long practiced combined arm tactic, the war chariots tactics used by Chinese during the warring states were in fact combined arm, and each war chariot was supported by a number (50?) ground troops, also Qin’s army had phalanx formation and also derived the three rank tactic for its crossbow army, so in this respect Qin also had an advantage over Alex. Lastly
Training is hard to determine but Qin had training round for its crossbow, spherical tipped crossbow round rather than arrow tipped, so Qin’s troop should receive some training at least, so a pure conscript army is very unlikely.
During Alex’s time, saddle was not invented, so Companion cavalry’s effect against well placed phalanx and crossbow will be limited, and as already demonstrated in battle of ChangPing Qin army used at least 5000 cavalry, (又一军五千骑绝赵壁闲), which suggested Qin is well practised in cavalry tactics, also after the unification Qin fought and beat the Hun’s with its crossbow tactics. Therefore Companion cavalry’s effectiveness against Qin’s army can not be overstated.
Overall in weapon and cavalry, Alex does not possess any advantage over the Qin army, as for formation and tactic both Qin and Alex army are on equal footing. Training is hard to measure, since there is no solid information on training, but one thing for sure, both Alex’s troop and the core of Qin’s army will be veterans who fought numerous battles. The sole advantage enjoyed by Alex will be elephant, but if the setting is at Gansu, there is no way to bring living elephants to do battle, and Qin is bordering with Chu and even conquered some Chu’s area(southern china) , so Qin should have experienced elephant before, well at least knew what they are. However Alex will not have faced massed crossbow before, and as demonstrated in Sparta and Athens’s war, even well trained Spartans will surrender when showered by arrows, phalanx formation is just to slow. Another interesting thing is Qin may be able to field some catapult or giant crossbow during the battle, since stone thrower already existed during that period (范蠡兵法飞石重十二斤，为机发行三百步), and even if Elephant can cause indented havoc, Qin army will simply build defence fortifications just to tire down the Alex’s army, (very similar to WW1’s trench warfare, army are stalemated)
Therefore Alex’s troop’s fate will be similar to Zhao’s army at Changping, butchered to the last man.

One difference between the Greeks and the Persians was that the Greeks, after having fighting among themselves so long, they developed into a battle hardened race. The Persians brought peace and prosperity to the numerous nations of the Middle East under their reign, and so they became relatively soft.

China, during the time of Alexander, wasn't in one of those "soft from peace" or "decaying from corruption" or "bankrupt from being overstretched" periods, that typically afflicts highly civilized, prosperous, sedentary cultures. Rather, coming out from one of those most brutal wars in its history, the survivors and victors were extremely battle hardened, backed by doctrines like the Art of War, that view war as a total enterprise from politics to assymetrical strategies.

It's hard to say,But the desert between China and Middle East will prevent him.During ancient time,natural barrier is more powerful than any troops.If he invaded China,I think he would die in some place in the vast desert.If he went to China by sea,he must went through unknown sea,and the thyphone in West Pacific is very powerful,he might become the food of fishes.(Like Mongles in Japan).

Assuming Alexander made it to China he would have won. Like Sudedei and Sun Tzu he was one of those rare indivuals born to battle. Of all the truly great commanders there are less than 20 for all of human history.

Alexander the Great, Scipio, Sudedei, Barbarossa, Sun Tzu, Julius Ceaser, Patton, Robert E Lee, Atilla, Mainstien etc. I am less familiar with the eastern greats.


You guys are under estimating the effect of the phalanx on enemy troops. with oak backed bronze faced sheilds, bronze or lamilar armor, bronze helms and 24 foot long pikes the sheer forward mass of the unit was awesome. Xenophon and 10,000 greek Hoplites with just 12 foot pikes shattered a Persian army many times its size. The Chinese enver developed the pushing tactics of the hellenic world instead fighting with much looser formations. When dealing with hellenic heavies the sum is far greater than the whole. The bronze armor and sheilds not only protected the troops the gave the men behind them solid purchase to push. a front of 1000 men 15 deep would push as a unit placing the force of 15,000 men into the space of just 1000.

As for Afghanistan Alexander was there, and left the area its proud bactrian heritage. So he had a direct route to China if he wanted it. Also any technological advantages the Chinese enjoyed would be short lived. Alexander as a military genius never left a weapon unused beucase it wasn't Hellenic. His troops (probalby recruited locals) would soon be using the best of Chinese technology and tactics alongside the Hellenic and Persian forces.

zraver said:

Assuming Alexander made it to China he would have won. Like Sudedei and Sun Tzu he was one of those rare indivuals born to battle. Of all the truly great commanders there are less than 20 for all of human history.

Alexander the Great, Scipio, Sudedei, Barbarossa, Sun Tzu, Julius Ceaser, Patton, Robert E Lee, Atilla, Mainstien etc. I am less familiar with the eastern greats.


You guys are under estimating the effect of the phalanx on enemy troops. with oak backed bronze faced sheilds, bronze or lamilar armor, bronze helms and 24 foot long pikes the sheer forward mass of the unit was awesome. Xenophon and 10,000 greek Hoplites with just 12 foot pikes shattered a Persian army many times its size. The Chinese enver developed the pushing tactics of the hellenic world instead fighting with much looser formations. When dealing with hellenic heavies the sum is far greater than the whole. The bronze armor and sheilds not only protected the troops the gave the men behind them solid purchase to push. a front of 1000 men 15 deep would push as a unit placing the force of 15,000 men into the space of just 1000.

Click to expand...

You are assuming the Chinese will be standing like a block facing the so called
phalanx one on one on a fair gorund?

The Chinese fight with looser formations because they often deal with guerilla tactics. Read more about Sun Tzu and you see why. You put a phalnax on a pass, thinking the Chinese would be stupid to attack it headon, when in fact, they're more likely to take a detour and would already burning your undefended camp to the ground. They don't attack headon, at least the skilled generals would not. Their strategy is based on moving like water; attack where there is a vacuum, hold your ground when defenses are high.

Alexander had no direct access to China. If he had gone north, he would be dealing with no less than the Huns. Phalnax isn't going to work in the open desert against an all cavalry all archery force. If he came to China, he isn't going to find an empire like the Persians that had been softened with peace and prosperity, but one that has been torn by civil wars, leaving extremely battle hardened and experienced armies, much like the Greeks were when they faced the Persians. Among the personages he may have to deal with may be no less than Sun Tzu himself or Qin Shi Huangdi himself, who despite his tyranny, can be rated a genius.

In various parts of China he may have to face local challenges. Like in India, humid conditions along the south play havoc against laminar constructed shields, since they soften and often fall apart. This is a reason why southerners fielding solid wooden crossbows are able to find measure against northerners using laminar recurved bows. Another is contending with specialized forces. One of the least known of all Chinese military achievements was the creation of specialized commando forces that are trained to fight aboard a ship, people picked that are trained to resist sea sickness, people who are trained to do amphibous landings. Thus the first marines were born, from the kingdom of Wu, the same kingdom where Sun Tzu originated. These marines proved their hand with the survival of this kingdom, with their brazen attacks and offensives against northern rival kingdoms attempting to pass the Yangtze river to attack Wu. Their most notable achievement is defeating Cao Cao in the battle of Red Cliffs despite the superior numbers Cao Cao had in his disposal, including his vaunted elite cavalry and Hunnic units.

Complex weapon system can not be learned overnight, metallurgy can not be improved in short time span. Most importantly the Art of War despises the open ground battle, so before Alex had a chance of battle, his supply deport is likely to be razed to the ground, his army harassed and ambushed numerous times and even if an open battle is fought, he would nonetheless face arrows that will give him and his army a really good shade to fight under.
Persian army was routed because they haven’t fight any major battles and are recruited from various little kingdoms within the empire, but Alex in China will face Qin’s army who had been fighting total war for years, and its soldier are disciplined under the Legalist principles its general trained under the art of war

A short course on Legalism for those who do not know.

Legalism and the Legalists of Ancient China

Upon first acquaintance the so-called Legalist philosophy of government in ancient China seems no more than a rationalization by political administrators for their having total political control of their societies. And perhaps this was the way Legalism arose, but over time the Legalist administrators and advisors formulated enough tenets and principles that their ideas had at least the semblance of a philosopy of political and social administration.

The era in which administrators openly avowed Legalism was about 300 BCE to 200 BCE, the time of the conquest of the six kingdoms of the Warring States Period by the Kingdom of Qin (Ch'in); i.e., the time of the creation of the Chinese Empire. Legalist ministers were instrumental in the strengthening of Qin to enable it to conquer the other kingdoms.

Before the conquest of the other kingdoms by Qin and the creation of the Chinese Empire, what is now China consisted of a multitude of principalities wracked by chronic warfare. Not only did the seven kingdom go to war with each other, there were feudal subdivisions within the kingdoms which fought with each other and with the rulers of their kingdom.

Warfare in this Warring States period was a definite calamity for the people but the social and economic situtations were not complete misery. The Chinese civilization of the time was a thousand to two thousand years ahead of Europe and the Middle East in terms of technology. At a time when no one in Europe or the Middle East could melt even one ounce of iron, in china people were casting multi-ton objects, a feat that Britain was not able to achieve until the eighteenth century.

The fractured politics of ancient China appeared to be an unnecessary burdern upon an otherwise brilliant civilization. There had been attempts to unite the feuding states before Qin Shihuang conquered the other kingdoms. But such conquests had little effect on the fragmentation because the conquering monarch had to divide up control of the conquered states among his subordinates and they, in turn, divided up control of their territory among their subordinates. This hierarchical subdivision was the essence of feudalism. After a few generations the feudal subunits emerged as autonomous states ready and willing to fight with their overlords or the lords of other feudal subunits. Thus the conquests did not lead to consolidation. What was needed by the conquering states was not just a victory in the field but a system of governance that would retain control.

There were a number of philosophies of political administration that were vying for adoption by the monarchs of the kingdoms. Confucianism, which had arisen about 500 BCE, stressed the importance of filial allegiance and ritual and probably was the dominant philosophy of the time. The Confucians asseted that humans were basically good and that evil came from the failures of the systems under which they lived. Mohism was a philosophy propounded by Mo Ti (usually referred by the name of his book Mo Tzu), a teacher who initially was a Confucian. He proposed that the problems of humans could be solved by universal love. If everyone loved everyone then disputes could not exist, at least according to the Mohists. While that proposition might be acceptable the panacea lacked a practical path for its implementation.

Some of the royal administrators averred that from their experience humans were fundamentally evil, and given the opportunity would perpetrate the most apalling acts of selfishness, including, most importantly, disloyalty to their rulers. The administrators who became known as Legalists asserted that humans could be dissuaded from acting upon their selfish impulses only if they faced a set of rigidly enforced punishments for evil, selfish behavior. This meant that the basis for a just, prosperous and contented society is a set of well-publicized laws and the punishments that are to be meted out for their violation. Thus the name that was adopted for this philosophy of political administration is Legalism.

But Legalism went beyond the proposition of the need for a comprehensive set of laws. The three elements of proper government according to Legalist theory were:

Shih: Power and position
Shu: Administrative techniques and methods
Fa: A Comprehensive system of laws.

The Legalists not only asserted that humans were by nature evil but they expanded their notion of evil to include those activities which were not deemed socially productive, such as reading and scholarship. The Legalists believed that the only productive occupations were farming and weaving. This meant that reading was simply a waste of the labor resources of the society. So all books other than those on farming, weaving and divination were burned, and those scholars who refused to heed the administrators' edicts against pursuing useless activities were punished and some were even buried alive.

The dictum of Han Fei Tzu was

In the state of an intelligent ruler
there are no books,
instead the laws serve as lessons.

The Legalists sanctioned military activities as essential to the survival and expansion of of the political sector. The feudal nobility were individually required to demonstrate military process in order to be accepted as members of that class. However the Legalists destroyed the political power of that feudal class. Administrative was removed from the feudal nobles and put into the hands of a professional bureaucracy. The bureaucrats could come from any class and entry was to be based upon ability rather than birth.

The heyday of Legalism was in Qin just before the creation of the Chinese Empire. The Legalist hammered Qin into a strong state with a strong military. That enabled its armies to defeat the other kingdoms and create the Chinese Empire. But the Qin dynasty survived only a few years after the death of the first emperor. The Han dynasty that took over control of the empire adopted the Qin innovation of a professional bureaucracy to run the empire.

crobato said:

Legalism and the Legalists of Ancient China

Click to expand...

It's the equivalent to the modern day's fascism, or more likely NAZI ideas.

They basically talk the samething, the state has the absolute power over individuals. And Legalism went even further: the whole value of an individual is to contribute to the strength of the state.

Please fishhead do not parrot crude slogans about non existent links between chinese legalism developed 2000 years ago as a moral base for a dynastic feudal state and barely 100 year old principles of a totalitarian ideology.

Legal positivism as developed by Carl Schmitt (radical utilitarism) was indeed one of the pivotal elements of the national socialist state (italian fascism was slightly different drawing more on roman classics) but Hitler's intellectual comrades had certainly not ancient China in mind during the formative phase of their ideology in 20's of the 20th century.

P.S.: Drawing this kind of parallels could easily lead to wrong conclusions about contemporary China since neo conservatives and radical nationalists in the US are already describing China in a distortive and provocative way using a completely inadequate vocabulary. The fascist ideology died more than sixty years ago with the fall of nazi Germany, fascist Italy and their respective client states (Japan pre '45 was an imperialist military dictatorship but not a fascist regime!). Reviving a certain type of ancient propaganda talk serves only the interests of people who are keen to demonize China for quite palpable purposes.