But they need discipline to be used well, and good marksmen (although given the range on them and the nature of the enemy, that's not so important). You could say the same thing about a modern rifle; and there the professionals win every time.
Alexander the Great vs. China
- Thread starter Archbob
- Start date
- Status
Espoir
Warlord
Is the Chinese general Zhuge Liang?
So let me get this straight, the scenario we're trying to imagine here is if Alexander the Great popped onto a battlefield against a bunch of Chinese troops, who will win the battle?
It depends entirely on the composition of troops on both sides, as well as the general leading the Chinese side. Plus the terrain, and about a million other variables.
If you're trying to create a scenario on "whether Alex would conquer China", then you have to take logistics into account because conquering large tracts of land require logistics. To speculate on the aforementioned conquest while ignoring logistics is like trying to speculate the performance of a paper dart while ignoring the effects of drag. It is too significant to ignore.
Basically, yes.
Hence all the disagreement.
That's what I said earlier, but if we go for realism then the question is a no-brainer. We are just assuming that his logistical corps has a wonder day at the office.
This is the scenario we are discussing, prior to the last day or two posts:
Alexander's preparation
Qin's background
Qin's background (cont'd)
As far as I'm concerned, we're not trying to ignore logistics. But we are trying to make some reasonable assumptions - more on that followed these.
aelf
Ashen One
Let's put it this way. The Qin kicked the Rong out, who kicked the Yuezhi/Tocharians out, who kicked the Saka out, who conquered the Greek Baktrians. The Chinese would probably win. And Duke Mu's offensive was primarily done with cavalry against the finest horsemen in the world, so I wouldn't underrate the Chinese cavalry.
If that is not enough comparison, Chandragupta Maurya trashed the Seleucids after defeating the Nanda Empire, which Alexander couldn't even have taken on, and I doubt Chandragupta could defeat the Chinese with their massed crossbowmen (which, by the way, were quite effective against massed elephants). So, yes, don't think there's much to speculate about here.
But the Greeks wouldn't lose as badly as the barbaric Romans would
If that is not enough comparison, Chandragupta Maurya trashed the Seleucids after defeating the Nanda Empire, which Alexander couldn't even have taken on, and I doubt Chandragupta could defeat the Chinese with their massed crossbowmen (which, by the way, were quite effective against massed elephants). So, yes, don't think there's much to speculate about here.
But the Greeks wouldn't lose as badly as the barbaric Romans would
The Chinese got slaughtered by the Mongols, who had great cavalry and leadership just like Alexander.
aelf
Ashen One
-99 marks for not reading.
I see not to what you refer.
aelf
Ashen One
The post right above yours. Duke of Mu defeated the Rong with cavalry. The Rong are among the finest horsemen in the world, able to defeat the Yuezhi, who were in turn able to defeat the Saka. Ergo, the Chinese cavalry was nothing to be scoffed at.
Another point, which I mentioned, Alexander's men were terrified of Porus' elephant corps. The Nanda Empire's elephant army far exceeded Porus', with an estimated over 6000 elephants. The Chinese were able to defeat elephants easily with massed crossbowmen. Do you think even the Greek heavy infantry stood a chance?
Let's put it this way. The Qin kicked the Rong out, who kicked the Yuezhi/Tocharians out, who kicked the Saka out, who conquered the Greek Baktrians. The Chinese would probably win. And Duke Mu's offensive was primarily done with cavalry against the finest horsemen in the world, so I wouldn't underrate the Chinese cavalry.
If that is not enough comparison, Chandragupta Maurya trashed the Seleucids after defeating the Nanda Empire, which Alexander couldn't even have taken on, and I doubt Chandragupta could defeat the Chinese with their massed crossbowmen (which, by the way, were quite effective against massed elephants). So, yes, don't think there's much to speculate about here.
But the Greeks wouldn't lose as badly as the barbaric Romans would
You've got some interesting information here that's relevant. However, using the reasoning that one state at a period of ascendancy, was able to beat another state at a period of weakness, does not translate as a chain reaction theorem that always holds true. And the only guy with the elephants in this contest, is going to be Alexander, who handled them well before. Furthermore, I don't necessarily see every steppe tribe presenting a unified threat; yeah if he has to fight all of Asia it's going to be tough with 150,000 men.
(everyone) should read some of the previous posts too. Chinese cavalry was still dominated by war chariots in the warring states, and the cho-ko-nu was good for massed volleys, but only had a range of 100 yards or so (light bolt, flat trajectory), and not against armoured troops at that.
The Rong? Anyway, it could be that they beat the Rong because they had bad leadership, but awesome cavalry which was the key to winning their other wars; you can't say that if Arsenal beat Chelsea and Chelsea beat United, then Arsenal will beat United. By the way, the entire Greek army was built to beat cavalry; they'd just spent years in action in Persia, where they have great cavalry.
And Alexander still beat the elephants, and would have refined his methods to be a lot better during a China campaign.
And Alexander still beat the elephants, and would have refined his methods to be a lot better during a China campaign.
aelf
Ashen One
And you imagine the nomads didn't have brilliant cavalry commanders? These people lived on horseback. Every freaking rider could be a brilliant cavalry commander. The Thessalians were nothing compared to them.
And guess where kataphraktoi and, by extension, knights came from.
Flying Pig said:
Barely. It certainly wasn't pretty, and Porus had relatively few.
And the point is not to beat the elephants, but to beat the massed crossbows that could beat the elephants. You don't get it. Those crossbows had more range and power than most if not all other bows during that time. There were also variations such as the Lian Nu and Zhu Ge Nu, which were capable of firing multiple arrows at once or in rapid succession. And the normal grunts had crossbows, not just some semi-elite infantry corps. A crossbow, a polearm and a sword were standard-issue. Sounds like they could deal with both heavy infantry and cavalry quite well.
aelf
Ashen One
And an imaginative scenario of Alexandrian Greeks vs. the Chinese lends itself to great accuracy to begin with
Besides, even a weakened Nanda Empire was something to be reckoned with.
vogtmurr said:
No, it's not the steppe tribes he'd be worried about in this scenario.
If Alexander had subdued the Nanda Empire, then yes he'd have the elephants. But the elephants might not have amounted to that much anyway.
vogtmurr said:
Well, to be fair, the most recent post is not very difficult to find, unlike some info buried elsewhere
I don't think war chariots could have beaten the Rong, so the Chinese cavalry must have been something. Also, AFAIK, the Chinese chariots were quite different from the Persian/Celtic ones, but I'm not an expert in this.
Besides, even if the chariot thing was true of the eastern and coastal states, it might not be true for a western state like Qin.
And few of the Chinese crossbows were Zhu Ge Nus. The Chinese had the best crossbows in the world and could outmatch the composite bow, especially in those numbers. That's something for everyone at that time to chew on.
EDIT: Okay, I did some reading on this a while back, which is why I have some knowledge of this. But I'm trying to reconfirm what I know, and it appears that my memory had holes. I conflated Duke of Mu of Qin (7th century B.C.) with general Meng Tian of Qin (3rd century B.C.). The Duke of Mu displaced the Rong people, among whom numbered some Scythians, including the Saka, who were nomads and gifted horsemen. Meng Tian was later sent by Qin Shi Huang to crush the Xiongnu, who were the ones who even later displaced the Yuezhi, who displaced the Saka from the Tarim Basin. I wish I remember where I got some of the details of Meng Tian's campaign (in which, IIRC, he sent his cavalry ahead of the infantry).
We all (I hope) know that the Xiongnu were formidable horsemen, foreshadowing the rise of the (related) Mongols later. For a comparison of the might of the Xiongnu, we may be able to look at how the Huns performed against Rome, since elements of the Xiongnu were apparently part of the Huns and might have been seminal in forming the confederation.
So, the point still stands, but I hope these details are as interesting to you as they are to me
It seems the disagreements are more on the *assumptions* rather than the scenario.
Might I suggest agreeing on said assumptions first before speculating? It would certainly help the discussion.
...like resuscitating a corpse...
Sharwood
Rich, doctor nephew
Can't we put a few bullets into it to make sure it's dead, like Ben Hall? Be better than suffering through more of this.
aelf
Ashen One
Aww, come on. I'm sure my posts aren't half bad
In an earlier post: Seleucus obtained 500 war elephants as part of a treaty with Chandragupta in 307 BC. That was not a bargain from a position of power either, which Alexander's unified empire in 310 BC would be. I think its safe to assume he would have a good number of elephants, but feeding them on a large march might be a challenge at times.
I disagree - the cho ko nu was the most common. These particular cross bows were not as powerful as composite bows, and if they were, they would be larger, and not have as high a rate of fire. They would also be less accessible to the average peasant soldier. Read some of the earlier posts, and the quotes taken from Chinese written articles on it.
So, the point still stands, but I hope these details are as interesting to you as they are to me
Sure they are.
I don't know if the problem is with the assumptions, or people simply being unaware of them. Some earlier postsset this scenario up - I keep referring to them but maybe it is better just to assume he is able to get 150,000 men, the product of experience and his conquest of the Mediterranean and Middle East, into China and take it from there.
weell it's far from dead to begin with - but I'm running out of steam.
Do you think 150,000 men is far fetched, under his Admiral Nearchus he had a fleet of 1,800 transports, I suppose thats far fetched too. The fact is that Eastern tactics were far more advanced than Western tactics. Also Alexanders corps of Macedonians remained 35-40 thousand, however, he recruited a lot of troops from the tribes and lands he conquered. I know if I was him I would, would you not?
Why don't we discuss what would have happened in the first battle between Alexander and the King of Qin. First let's discuss, where they would have met each other, and then how many men each side could concentrate for battle. Finally, what each force would have consisted of, in types of troops and numbers in each unit, also the ability of commanders on both sides.
Next, lets break down how each side would have arrayed their forces facing the other. Let's actually simulate a battle through writing, and break down the armies of both sides and discuss the strengths and weaknesses of different types of combat troops, the size of units, their use on the battlefield, and above all how both sides would have fought the other. Maybe by doing this we can come up with some answers as to who would become victorious. We might be able to get to the core of the question by doing this. We all want to know who would win, I know I would really like to know.
The first question then how many troops do you guys think each side could bring into battle with the other, and where do you think they would have met for battle first. What would Alexander do? How would the king of Qin react? Actually what year would have Alexander entered China? and I know alot of this has to be assumed, and which Chinese kingdom would he be fighting with?
The period of time when Alexander could have been there would be during the warring states period (350-210 BCE). He would have either fought against the kingdom of Qin, or the kingdom of Chu. The Qin sound more interesting, they were conquerors like Alexander.
Any thoughts on where Alexander and the Qin forces would meet, and what would the terrain be like? Who would have the high ground, or would they face off on a giant open field? Any feedback is helpful, and lets all stop berating each other and work together and learn from this.
I also, want to ask a question, is it true the Qin at this time relied heavily on chariots? If so what were they like? How many could they bring into battle? If this is true how would they attack Alexander, and how would he react, and did Chinese chariots have a advantage over Persian chariots in quality or tactics? I think these are pretty interesting questions, what do you think.
Based on what we can learn from the makeup and tactics used by both sides, we can decide what kind of ground both sides would look for to deploy their army on. First though, When and where would they meet, and how many troops would both sides be able to bring. Let's discuss this first and see what everybody says.
- Status
Similar threads
