Alexander the Great vs. China

[aelf]

OK, crossbows are great - but volley firing wouldn't be much good in he face of Greek shock tactics - they were one of the most agressive armies in history. I don't think Alexander ever defended anything in his life.

Dude, assuming both armies are arrayed against each other, how do you move faster than quarrels fly? It also depends on what tactic Alexander might have used. And even at Gaugamela, his cavalry was mired with fighting the Persian cavalry for a while before he saw a gap in the Persian centre and charged it. Enough time for a few volleys at the slow infantry line.

 

[Flying Pig]

Which would have done nothing - the low penetration on a bolt that they used and Greek armour and formation would have meant that they were just wasting fire.

 

[vogtmurr]

From what I've read, the strength of the longbow is in its relative ease and speed to shoot (assuming the archer is trained, of course) and ballistics. Something like the fact that it fires in an arc, lending the arrow some power thanks to gravity as it descends. This also means that the longbow was seldom fired directly at targets, which would have curtailed its range anyway. Longbowmen practiced something called 'cloud shooting' to cover an area with their fire instead of shooting at units like in AoE. Somewhat like artillery.

Crossbows, however, operate differently. They have quarrels instead of arrows and fire directly. They require more effort to draw, but that is mostly done by the simple machines. They make it up with great penetrating power and perhaps more accuracy through the effect of firing more in a straight line than longbows. Usually people tend to think that crossbows have shorter range than longbows. While this may be generally true, at longer range, the longbows also lose their penetrating power. IIRC, a longbowman (as in he did it for a living at Warwick Castle) told me that the effective armor-piercing distance of the longbow is only about 50 yards or so. Note that the result of Poitiers was mostly due to difficulty the French were having with the terrain than longbows per se, something like the Teutoburg Wald. Can't remember about Agincourt now, but I think it's similar. Anyway, actually some crossbows might have had ranges comparable to or longer than the longbow. No one really knows for sure, but some people have done some tests and this is what a few of the ones I read about concluded.

I thought you didn't have time for this

Before we go down this same dark road again, how about we lay down a few tenets; agree on some, and agree to disagree on others, pending proof.

1. That video represents pretty much the way a mass produced cho-ko-nu is depicted in wiki. It's really a hand crossbow with repeating fire. This is what the peasant levies would have.
2. Han dynasty (as you mentioned) armies had more powerful composite cho ko nus, so it is reasonable that the Qin armies have some of these in their regular units, but they are not as light and fast firing, and it is still a relatively small crossbow in power despite its bulk. I don't know what the effective armor penetration range would be, maybe 50 yards ? - but not shield and armour.
3. Regardless, I don't see anybody sustaining 10 rounds every 15 seconds indefinitely without the thing jamming or eventually breaking. It's a weapon of numbers - it isn't made that rugged or precise - and I don't see every peasant soldier arming these barbs with fast acting poison either. As Flying Pig said, some of these darts would land on unprotected horses or exposed flesh.
4. The cho ko nu is not an arbalest, in fact that term itself refers to late medieval crossbows that in essence may have appeared earlier in China. They could have as much draw weight as a longbow, but only fired twice a minute, and required a well trained corps. You are right the quarrel was intended more for a flat trajectory, hence reduced range.
5. About longbows: They required more skill to master than the crossbow, but had about 4 times the rate of fire. In fact archers such as this had bone and muscle deformities from their continued use. The killing range of the longbow in the Hundred Years War has been described variously but around 250 yards, and that was against armoured men. (There is a concurrent article on Roman vs. Medieval armies with some good info) Maybe your friend from Warwick castle was measuring the effect against the impractically heavy armour that came about as a response to this. But I'm sure you can find some exotic crossbows that exceeded this; neither they nor the English longbow are relevant to this though. The maximum range of big composite bows from the Assyrian Iron Age is given as 650 yards.
6. Philip and Alexander's light troops (Thracian Peltasts, Phrygian skirmishers, Cretan Archers, and slingers) were highly specialized experts, who were more suited to wearing down melee infantry formations, but they could be adapted to this role. The famed Agrianians and other javelin troops needed to close to about 30m but were singularly effective against all but heavily armoured men. I base this on books on ancient warfare and it seems to be the same on wiki.

 

[aelf]

Which would have done nothing - the low penetration on a bolt that they used and Greek armour and formation would have meant that they were just wasting fire.

No. Again, the bows shown in the video are not for combat use. Would you compare an air rifle to a combat rifle?

I thought you didn't have time for this

I don't. It's bad for me

Before we go down this same dark road again, how about we lay down a few tenets; agree on some, and agree to disagree on others, pending proof.

1. That video represents pretty much the way a mass produced cho-ko-nu is depicted in wiki. It's really a hand crossbow with repeating fire. This is what the peasant levies would have.

I don't think peasant levies were really what you're looking at, though. Sure they would have a significant presence, but psiloi are also peasants. You might ask what Greek peasants would be doing in China, but the Macedonian taxeis was recruited largely by region and this was done to reduce the numbers of people in restive areas for political purposes. Naturally, plenty of peasants are going to be part of it.

2. Han dynasty (as you mentioned) armies had more powerful composite cho ko nus, so it is reasonable that the Qin armies have some of these in their regular units, but they are not as light and fast firing, and it is still a relatively small crossbow in power despite its bulk. I don't know what the effective armor penetration range would be, maybe 50 yards ? - but not shield and armour.

Maybe not 50 yards, and the phalanx front was very resistant to arrows. However, numbers, as I said before, are what needs to be accounted for here. Unlike in Europa Barbarorum, phalanxes are not nearly invincible from the front. Projectiles would get in here and there, and with enough numbers the shields would be encumbered. Bad shields are bad for the phalanx. Certainly, the crossbows and especially Zhu Ge Nus would devastate the psiloi. Not sure what Alexander would have made of that, or whether he could expect it. The lighter crossbows would be sufficient for this purpose, leaving the heavier ones for use prior the actual engagement.

One thing to note, if crossbows can work against armoured elephants, they can certainly work against heavy infantry.

3. Regardless, I don't see anybody sustaining 10 rounds every 15 seconds indefinitely without the thing jamming or eventually breaking. It's a weapon of numbers - it isn't made that rugged or precise - and I don't see every peasant soldier arming these barbs with fast acting poison either. As Flying Pig said, some of these darts would land on unprotected horses or exposed flesh.

I don't really like talking much about the Zhu Ge Nu, since I don't think it will be present in significant enough numbers. The poison thing seems also kind of marginal. I don't know. There are accounts of poison arrows being used in the Romance of the Three Kingdoms, but the practicality of it on a large scale is questionable to me.

4. The cho ko nu is not an arbalest, in fact that term itself refers to late medieval crossbows that in essence may have appeared earlier in China. They could have as much draw weight as a longbow, but only fired twice a minute, and required a well trained corps. You are right the quarrel was intended more for a flat trajectory, hence reduced range.

Keep in mind that the range of bows at that time probably did not match medieval English longbows, so the crossbows would have had significant range. About the well-trained thing, a crossbow required less training than normal bows. The training in question would probably be more about discipline and normal infantry drills. Also remember that the crossbowmen are also pretty much the Chinese version of heavy infantry.

5. About longbows: They required more skill to master than the crossbow, but had about 4 times the rate of fire. In fact archers such as this had bone and muscle deformities from their continued use. The killing range of the longbow in the Hundred Years War has been described variously but around 250 yards, and that was against armoured men. (There is a concurrent article on Roman vs. Medieval armies with some good info) Maybe your friend from Warwick castle was measuring the effect against the impractically heavy armour that came about as a response to this. But I'm sure you can find some exotic crossbows that exceeded this; neither they nor the English longbow are relevant to this though. The maximum range of big composite bows from the Assyrian Iron Age is given as 650 yards.

250 yards of armor piercing is unbelievable. That would be more powerful than gunpowder weapons. Yes, the 50 yards thing is probably for plate armour (and he wasn't my friend, he was just a demonstrator ), though I'm not sure as some plate would be resistant to almost any arrow. But in your example armour may mean studded leather or something, which is still a far cry from mail or scale that existed since ancient times. And heavy armour was very practical, otherwise the cuirass wouldn't still be in use in the 18th to 19th century.

Anyway, you're talking about a relatively advanced bow. You can scale it down in this scenario, so I wouldn't be positive about armour piercing at much greater range than that. 650 yards of maximum range is probably not very effective for much. Most archers would wait till enemies get a lot closer. I think, all considered, I'm pretty sure the crossbow would have a range comparable to most bows of the time and pack more punch in general.

6. Philip and Alexander's light troops (Thracian Peltasts, Phrygian skirmishers, Cretan Archers, and slingers) were highly specialized experts, who were more suited to wearing down melee infantry formations, but they could be adapted to this role. The famed Agrianians and other javelin troops needed to close to about 30m but were singularly effective against all but heavily armoured men. I base this on books on ancient warfare and it seems to be the same on wiki.

Yes, there are peltasts besides psiloi. The hypaspistai might even be used in a similar role. But they wouldn't represent such a large force and they would still have to beware of the light crossbows, though, as their role required light armour.

Slingers are something to be considered, but they don't form a significant part of any ancient army I know. Probably has something to do with the fact that they need to be trained or experienced and are thus quite rare and valuable.

 

[Flying Pig]

No. Again, the bows shown in the video are not for combat use. Would you compare an air rifle to a combat rifle?

They can't have had much heavier rounds, though. Or cold they - do you know figures?

 

[vogtmurr]

250 yards of armor piercing is unbelievable. That would be more powerful than gunpowder weapons. Yes, the 50 yards thing is probably for plate armour (and he wasn't my friend, he was just a demonstrator ), though I'm not sure as some plate would be resistant to almost any arrow. But in your example armour may mean studded leather or something, which is still a far cry from mail or scale that existed since ancient times. And heavy armour was very practical, otherwise the cuirass wouldn't still be in use in the 18th to 19th century.

Just one thing on this. With 175 lb. draw weight and long arrows this is certainly believable. Even plate mail evolved over time, becoming heavier at the expense of mobility until finally it made itself obsolete. The cuirasseurs with heavy armor went out by the late 17th Century, breastplates were worn after that but they were as much ornamental, proof against sabers maybe not musketballs.

 

[aelf]

Just one thing on this. With 175 lb. draw weight and long arrows this is certainly believable. Even plate mail evolved over time, becoming heavier at the expense of mobility until finally it made itself obsolete. The cuirasseurs with heavy armor went out by the late 17th Century, breastplates were worn after that but they were as much ornamental, proof against sabers maybe not musketballs.

Err... Napoleonic Wars?

 

[vogtmurr]

Cuirasseur regiments yes, but not with the heavy armor we are speaking of. They no longer tried to make them 'bullet proof' in the Napoleonic Wars ! But the 17th Century heavies, yes, their armor could stop longbows. And by the way, I just read the standard English longbow topped 200 lbs of draw with 32 inch arrows ! Think about that for a minute, then let's get back on topic. Where are we - which assumptions do you still disagree with ? The peasant weapon depicted in that video is what it is though.

 

[aelf]

Cuirasseur regiments yes, but not with the heavy armor we are speaking of. They no longer tried to make them 'bullet proof' in the Napoleonic Wars ! But the 17th Century heavies, yes, their armor could stop longbows.

Then why wear a cuirass at all? Why not just have hussars? The cuirass is solid alright, and certainly better than medieval plate.

And by the way, I just read the standard English longbow topped 200 lbs of draw with 32 inch arrows ! Think about that for a minute, then let's get back on topic.

Shrug. There are a lot of longbow fanboys and there are some exaggerated accounts out there, which they love to cite. These same people usually have no idea how Poitiers really went. There's an element of pride in all this.

I don't remember all the numbers, so I can't comment too much. But I've read about accounts of people actually doing some tests and finding out that a crossbow may be comparable. I see no reason why they should be lying, so I have reasonable belief that they are probably right.

EDIT: Actually, a cursory search yields this:

Although there are working examples of Medieval crossbows, there are no working examples of Medieval longbows, so a direct comparison between the two cannot be made. Hence, the only data I can draw on for longbows is either from historical evidence or from reproductions of Medieval longbows. It is my belief that while the range of longbows changed very little from the 11th. century through Medieval times, the range of crossbows certainly did increase. Historical evidence would indicate that in the hands of a well-trained longbowmen, distances of 250-350 yards were commonly attained. A few modern archers have regularly achieved distances of 350-450 yards with reproduction longbows. Inigo Simot loosed an arrow 462 yards 9 inches in 1914, and there is a claim of someone loosing an arrow 482 yards with a longbow.

At the time of the battle of Crecy (1346 C.E.), the English longbow almost certainly had a greater range than the crossbow used in field combat. Throughout the Medieval Period though, crossbows became more powerful. Sir Ralph Payne-Gallwey loosed a bolt from an actual Medieval crossbow spanned with a cranequin and achieve a cast of 490 yards. The ordinary 15th. century crossbow would likely cast a bolt 370-380 yards. These crossbows would surely outperform almost any longbow in terms of distance, but the accuracy of the crossbow at those ranges would likely be poor at best.

With range out of the way, power is an even more difficult subject to breach. In general, arrows weigh more than bolts, so they have a larger momentum (force) associated with them. However, a late Medieval crossbow bolt has a higher speed associated with it, which will overcome the lower mass. (the the force being equal to the mass times the square of the velocity). Both longbows and crossbows were capable of penetrating all but the thickest plate maile armour, but my understanding is that the heavy crossbow was the main driving force leading to heavier and heavier plate maile armour. At point blank range, the crossbow almost certainly had greater penetrating power than a long bow. By the 15th century, and possibly earlier, it is safe to say that heavy crossbows (such as a windlass spanned crossbow) were more powerful than longbows. The common crossbow probably wasn't much more powerful though.

Source

Where are we - which assumptions do you still disagree with ? The peasant weapon depicted in that video is what it is though.

It looks like a toy. Did you see the bow? What the hell was that? Just look at the picture on wiki and compare it with the model in the video. It might have something to do with the fact that mass producing weapons in a cottage industry is not exactly going to be encouraged.

One point to note, though, is that if a toy version can be manufactured quickly, full-blown crossbows aren't going to be a lot more difficult.

EDIT: Another cursory search and this comes up:

The arrows are very much like the "bolts" of the old English crossbow. They are armed with heavy and solid steel heads, and are feathered in a very ingenious manner (7). The feathers are so slight, that at first they appear as if they were mere black scratches on the shaft. They are, however, feathers, projecting barely a fiftieth of an inch from the shaft, but being arranged in a slightly spiral (helical) form so as to catch the air, and impart a rotary motion to the arrow. By the side of the crossbow in Fig.2 is seen a bundle of the arrows.

The strength of this bow is very great, though not so great as I have been told. It possesses but little powers of aim, and against a single and moving adversary would be useless. But for the purpose for which it was designed, namely, a wall piece which will pour a series of missiles upon a body of men, it is a very efficient weapon, and can make itself felt even against the modern rifle (single shot percussion in those days - geo). The range of this bow is said to be 400 yards, but I should think that its extreme effective range is at the most from 60 to 80 yards, and that even in that case it would be almost useless, except against large bodies of soldiers."

Source

This is good because there is a detailed technical diagram of the Zhu Ge Nu. It isn't very big, but it's clear that this is no mere trifling weapon. Also, note its use and the type of bolt. Nothing like the weak bolts and poisoned tips mentioned in that rather dubious show, which seems to conform to some stereotypes of Chinese culture.


PS: By the way, I've been saying Poitiers when I meant Crécy. My bad. However, the interesting thing about Poitiers was the fact that the longbows could not easily penetrate plate armour. And Agincourt was, as I recalled, like Crécy in being dictated by the terrain.

 

[BIG sven]

Ok one thing to agree on. In a fight against the greeks a longbow would prove much more affective than a chokunu but the thing is the longbow had a much further range than the chokunu and had a chance of penetrating the greek armor but the thing is the chinese did not have lonbows.

 

[vogtmurr]

Certainly, the crossbows and especially Zhu Ge Nus would devastate the psiloi. Not sure what Alexander would have made of that, or whether he could expect it. The lighter crossbows would be sufficient for this purpose, leaving the heavier ones for use prior the actual engagement.

Yeah, the presence of mass missile fire would make it hard for light armed skirmishers to get a first strike opportunity.

One thing to note, if crossbows can work against armoured elephants, they can certainly work against heavy infantry.

There are lots of pictures of progressively bigger, Chinese crossbows or ballistas to use the western equivalent. The Romans and Greeks had very powerful torsion bolt throwers too by the way. The siegecraft of Alexander's successors (which would be in his extended lifetime) demonstrated that.
Don't disagree with most of your points, it's just about a matter of degree and how many would be thus armed.

Anyway, you're talking about a relatively advanced bow. You can scale it down in this scenario, so I wouldn't be positive about armour piercing at much greater range than that. 650 yards of maximum range is probably not very effective for much. Most archers would wait till enemies get a lot closer. I think, all considered, I'm pretty sure the crossbow would have a range comparable to most bows of the time and pack more punch in general.

Oh yeah, like I think 200 yards against medium armor of the day for a bowman is reasonable. 650 yards might be possible in a favorable wind as a mass barrage on dense formations, but the flight would become erratic, and the residual force mostly that which gravity would impart.

Slingers are something to be considered, but they don't form a significant part of any ancient army I know. Probably has something to do with the fact that they need to be trained or experienced and are thus quite rare and valuable.

Well this is the thing, Alexander's army was largely composed of or became professional contingents or specialized experts, and they weren't that plentiful, some were ethnically unique. The best slingers indeed had both accuracy and a high rate of fire, at 150+ yards, against well protected foes, and wore armour themselves. The practised use of the sling was once applauded by a famous Greek general, I think it was an Athenian in the Peloponnesian War, who stressed that every soldier and camp follower should be so armed, because it was light, cheap, and ammunition could always be found. Maybe in less experienced hands, as effective as a zhu go nu.

Then why wear a cuirass at all? Why not just have hussars? The cuirass is solid alright, and certainly better than medieval plate.

Well I thought 'breastplates were worn [afterwards] but they were as much ornamental, proof against sabers maybe not musketballs' but if you can show me they still wore the same heavy armour as Cromwell's Ironsides or the Royalist 'Regiment of Lobsters', in the Napoleonic era...I don't know maybe the reduced corset was still that thick but it was not the same concept of armor.


Source

That's a very interesting article - the thing that isn't obvious is that although these crossbows had such terrific draw weight (requiring time and bulky equipment), a fairly light longbow of only 68 lb. draw (Thats a mere toy) sent an arrow of twice the weight with almost the same velocity. Because maximum force alone doesn't impart the energy, it's over what draw distance that force is exerted. It's obviously not linear, but force x draw distance = foot-pounds (or newton-meters) of energy. And by the way, the writer of that post who said "the force being equal to the mass times the square of the velocity" is mistaken. This also equals energy in foot-pounds, and it's actually 1/2 of that. That article states clearly a 68 lb. draw bow releases the energy of 1400 ft-lbs, vs. 750 ft-lbs from a fairly powerful crossbow. And in general, the bow had a greater range, and much greater rate of fire than such a crossbow. So trained longbowmen were pretty big assets, however armor penetration with the lighter crossbow bolt at closer battle distances could be just as impressive, or more so as they got bigger, but this is starting to get pretty bulky now.

It looks like a toy. Did you see the bow? What the hell was that? Just look at the picture on wiki and compare it with the model in the video. It might have something to do with the fact that mass producing weapons in a cottage industry is not exactly going to be encouraged.

One point to note, though, is that if a toy version can be manufactured quickly, full-blown crossbows aren't going to be a lot more difficult.

Well, I never made a precise comparison, but I would go with the dimensions of the earlier wiki example - it seems to have been accepted practice that every peasant household could have one. The composite example is for the trained army. The same article indicates they were not very effective against well armoured troops, but I would not say these were impotent..

 

[BIG sven]

Ok.The greeks just had to run or slowly move forward in a tight formation if the chokunus were the ones firing but if the chinese also sent out infantry they would still be slaughtered by the greek cavalry.

 

[stratego]

The Chinese got slaughtered by the Mongols, who had great cavalry and leadership just like Alexander.

Alexander's cavalry is comparable to the Mongol cavalry that same way that the redcoat's rifles is comparable to the American M16 assault rifle.

This is also saying that, 700 (typical number of Alexander's cavalry) is the same as 30,000 (typical number of Mongol cavalry).

**************

From what I've read, we're making the follow assumptions.
1. Alexander's army will have essentially teleported to the Chinese border ready to engage in battle. The logistics of war will be ignored.

2. Alexander will have sufficient time to grow his army from around 60,000 to a size that that would match at least one of the Chinese sides army's (Cao Cao's army being 300,000).

3. Unlike the Chinese, who had about 60,000 professional soldiers and had to conscript the rest of the soldiers from the peasantry (due to economic reasons), as Alexander's army grows, it will will retain the same percentage of professionally trained soldiers.

4. The Chinese military powers will still be at war with each other.

I guess under those conditions, Alexander will probably win.

 

[BIG sven]

Alexander's cavalry is comparable to the Mongol cavalry that same way that the redcoat's rifles is comparable to the American M16 assault rifle.

This is also saying that, 700 (typical number of Alexander's cavalry) is the same as 30,000 (typical number of Mongol cavalry).

**************

From what I've read, we're making the follow assumptions.
1. Alexander's army will have essentially teleported to the Chinese border ready to engage in battle. The logistics of war will be ignored.

2. Alexander will have sufficient time to grow his army from around 60,000 to a size that that would match at least one of the Chinese sides army's (Cao Cao's army being 300,000).

3. Unlike the Chinese, who had about 60,000 professional soldiers and had to conscript the rest of the soldiers from the peasantry (due to economic reasons), as Alexander's army grows, it will will retain the same percentage of professionally trained soldiers.

4. The Chinese military powers will still be at war with each other.

I guess under those conditions, Alexander will probably win.

but as alexanders armie gets bigger so will the chinese and alexander will need more buildins to house his army and if the chinese find out there will be hoards against the greeks.

 

[vogtmurr]

Alexander's cavalry is comparable to the Mongol cavalry that same way that the redcoat's rifles is comparable to the American M16 assault rifle.

This is also saying that, 700 (typical number of Alexander's cavalry) is the same as 30,000 (typical number of Mongol cavalry).

**************

From what I've read, we're making the follow assumptions.
1. Alexander's army will have essentially teleported to the Chinese border ready to engage in battle. The logistics of war will be ignored.

2. Alexander will have sufficient time to grow his army from around 60,000 to a size that that would match at least one of the Chinese sides army's (Cao Cao's army being 300,000).

3. Unlike the Chinese, who had about 60,000 professional soldiers and had to conscript the rest of the soldiers from the peasantry (due to economic reasons), as Alexander's army grows, it will will retain the same percentage of professionally trained soldiers.

4. The Chinese military powers will still be at war with each other.

I guess under those conditions, Alexander will probably win.

You haven't read many of these posts then. Right on #4, but my assumption is that it was possible for both Qin and Alexander to logistically maintain and oppose eachother with about the same size of trained, well equipped army. Plus Qin would raise many levies in defense of their homeland. There's no teleportation, we were discussing a scenario where he consolidates his Mediterranean Empire first the way he planned but died before completing, and brings a host of well trained and specialized troops from his encounters, much like he did in his Asiatic campaign. Nothing more or less, by the way I assumed that to be around 120-150,000. I didn't start this thread but it seemed more worth discussing then an attempt to move on from the Indus valley in 326 BC. This is 310 BC, an alternate history scenario if you like. The Mongols don't even enter into it, it was just a parallel example FlyingPig was mentioning. But 700 cavalry ? ..... He didn't have huge numbers of heavies, but more than that, and the overall size of his mounted force would be significant.

 

[vogtmurr]

Ok one thing to agree on. In a fight against the greeks a longbow would prove much more affective than a chokunu but the thing is the longbow had a much further range than the chokunu and had a chance of penetrating the greek armor but the thing is the chinese did not have lonbows.

Actually, what I was getting at is that Alexander's Cretan bowmen and other composite archers would be more effective then the Chinese crossbowmen, but greater numbers of them may tell.

Ok.The greeks just had to run or slowly move forward in a tight formation if the chokunus were the ones firing but if the chinese also sent out infantry they would still be slaughtered by the greek cavalry.

Sure - heavy infantry can either close the range quickly once they come under effective missile fire, or maintain a dense, shield wall with upraised spear points to reduce collateral damage. Either way, lighter armed missile troops can't hold or take a position against them unless they have overwhelming firepower and occupy heights, or a city wall. They Greek cavalry could be saved for the Chinese cavalry, initially.

 

[aelf]

Actually, what I was getting at is that Alexander's Cretan bowmen and other composite archers would be more effective then the Chinese crossbowmen, but greater numbers of them may tell.

I don't have the time to comment much this time, but this is unlikely. Going from what we've discussed so far, while composite bows may be better than crossbows, other bows are unlikely to be. Maybe the Indian longbow, not sure about that. But going by the composition of the typical Alexandrian army, we're looking at a pretty small contingent of archers, as part of the psiloi. This is compared to the Chinese crossbowmen, which consisted of virtually all of the regular infantry. So all in all the archers on the Greek side would not be more effective than the Chinese crossbowmen.

 

[Flying Pig]

However, I doubt that the Chinese crossbows would have done much, to be honest. They're being a bit overrated. Seeing as the whole (pretty much, with the exception of elites and officers) Chinese army was conscript (and they fight epically badly) and the whole Macedonian army was as good as professional, there's no real contest here.

 

[vogtmurr]

This is compared to the Chinese crossbowmen, which consisted of virtually all of the regular infantry. So all in all the archers on the Greek side would not be more effective than the Chinese crossbowmen.

The comparison on effectiveness was one on one - I recognized the impact of numbers, but are you saying the entire army has composite crossbows ? What else do they carry for weapons ? Maybe Nokmirt should also have an opportunity to comment on the composition.

 

[nokmirt]

The comparison on effectiveness was one on one - I recognized the impact of numbers, but are you saying the entire army has composite crossbows ? What else do they carry for weapons ? Maybe Nokmirt should also have an opportunity to comment on the composition.

From what I know the first line is light infantry, followed by heavy infantry, then the chariots, which I am guessing break through the opponents infantry. Then comes the cavalry to cut down the broken routed enemy. I am still studying up on it, and am in the process of learning more, just slowly, I hurt myself real bad yesterday, knee injury, so I am trying to recuperate, but it looks as if I will have plenty of time to read, for quite awhile. I do want to learn about different units and weapons composition and tactics. Right now I am going to watch a movie called red cliff which deals with the later three kingdoms period. I love that time period and I guess it is in two parts. Maybe this will give me some kind of insight until I can get ahold of the right reading material. I do have a book called battle that deals with china, I have to read it yet. At the same time I am modding for civ 4 BTS, a scenario, for my mod which will have Alexander and every nation between him and China. From making this mod I will learn some important things about both sides.