Civfan333
full metal alchemist
THEN Alexander would probably win......
Alexander the Great vs. China
- Thread starter Archbob
- Start date
- Status
cybrxkhan
Asian Xwedodah
not necessarily. you can't underestimate the Chinese. ever.
but it would be a very interesting match-up.
but it would be a very interesting match-up.
aronnax
Let your spirit be free
Neh! Chinese Iron was stronger than the weak willed metal that the Greeks used. Chinese had already mastered the art of smelting pig Iron, the Greeks not so much.
EnlightenmentHK
Emperor
- Joined
- May 28, 2007
- Messages
- 1,479
And that iron was not a mainstay of their armies until a century or two later. On the average Alexander's troops were better equipped and more heavily armored. They also had the advantage in horse, with Chinese heavy cavalry also being a bit further off.
Sir Matzee
Warlord
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2008
- Messages
- 146
Archbob
Ancient CFC Guardian
And how could primitive mongols conquest china?
With strategy perhaps....
Rampaging horsemen are scary, they can conquer anything.
Civfan333
full metal alchemist
yeah, and Genghis Khan was pretty much a military tactical genius......
hm lets see, if both troops were fresh when they first meet:
Alexander's forces would never be fresh when facing the Chinese in the final battle since their favorite tactics where always attrition, hit and run, etc...
second the only way to enter China is from desert or mountain/forest.
Alexander's advantage were professional heavy infantry, powerful heavy cavalry, excellent strategist, good moral army.
disadvantage outnumber,inferior technological , and although Alexander was brilliant he was impudent.
China's advantage were better weaponry (specially crossbow created in 5th BC) and much better metallurgy, much superior in number probably even greater than the Persian, and last excellent tacticians too, home terrain advantage.
disadvantage weak regular infantry, not good in moral(not united), weaker cavalry.
my conclusion China wins, because unless you can blitz like the mongols with cavalry in cheer number after thousands of years fighting each other, Alexander's army was much slower and they don't know the Chinese, and Alexander him self cares about honor so he wouldn't use sneaky strategy's but the Chinese in the other hand wont care about that and they will use every dirty trick to win (it's call tactics) + home terrain advantage = Alexander facing a surprise attack in a mountain/ rocky terrain probably with lot's of forest (guerrilla ). Crossbow can easily penetrate bronze armor/ shields of that time slaughtering many of Alexis forces, and their cavalry wouldn't respond efficiently because of the terrain. In fact they may even burn Alexander and his army in the forest at night...
even if he tries to face China in desert the Chinese wouldn't do it after one or two battle they will retreat, and wait until He across the desert, exhausted and once again beyond the desert is: mountains and forest so in the end it would be the same
PS: (hm this is just my opinion) Western at that time focus more on the battle itself, while the Chinese they focus much more in the whole war as one, and this maybe another advantage for China
Alexander's forces would never be fresh when facing the Chinese in the final battle since their favorite tactics where always attrition, hit and run, etc...
second the only way to enter China is from desert or mountain/forest.
Alexander's advantage were professional heavy infantry, powerful heavy cavalry, excellent strategist, good moral army.
disadvantage outnumber,inferior technological , and although Alexander was brilliant he was impudent.
China's advantage were better weaponry (specially crossbow created in 5th BC) and much better metallurgy, much superior in number probably even greater than the Persian, and last excellent tacticians too, home terrain advantage.
disadvantage weak regular infantry, not good in moral(not united), weaker cavalry.
my conclusion China wins, because unless you can blitz like the mongols with cavalry in cheer number after thousands of years fighting each other, Alexander's army was much slower and they don't know the Chinese, and Alexander him self cares about honor so he wouldn't use sneaky strategy's but the Chinese in the other hand wont care about that and they will use every dirty trick to win (it's call tactics) + home terrain advantage = Alexander facing a surprise attack in a mountain/ rocky terrain probably with lot's of forest (guerrilla ). Crossbow can easily penetrate bronze armor/ shields of that time slaughtering many of Alexis forces, and their cavalry wouldn't respond efficiently because of the terrain. In fact they may even burn Alexander and his army in the forest at night...
even if he tries to face China in desert the Chinese wouldn't do it after one or two battle they will retreat, and wait until He across the desert, exhausted and once again beyond the desert is: mountains and forest so in the end it would be the same
PS: (hm this is just my opinion) Western at that time focus more on the battle itself, while the Chinese they focus much more in the whole war as one, and this maybe another advantage for China
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
I think he'd have a pretty hard time conquering the Warring States, even assuming that he had an effective supply line and managed to get an army that distance. Half the reason he conquered Persia was because he managed to topple Darius, essentially usurping his throne and taking control of an already well established, sophisticated imperial system. The same would not be possible in the divided feudal states of pre-Imperial China. A smart invader may have been able to play the states off against each other, but I've never seen evidence that Alexander was anywhere near as gifted a statesman as he was a general.
Besides, IIRC, Alexanders next target was always intended to be the west, first taking the Greek colonies in Sicily and Italy, then perhaps moving on to Carthage and the Italic states, and then perhaps the Iberians and Celts.
Besides, IIRC, Alexanders next target was always intended to be the west, first taking the Greek colonies in Sicily and Italy, then perhaps moving on to Carthage and the Italic states, and then perhaps the Iberians and Celts.
hum when Alexander reach China there would only be 6 states, and once more being Alexander, negotiation to weakening the enemies first would dishonor his victory, so he would much more be just enter the fight, oh and by the way each of those 6 states would have much more army than Alexander's .
Again he is not stupid so he will observe first and try to attack in the better opportunity the right opponent, but even with that he still lack resources to conquer China, 40000 it's still too few and knowing nothing about this enemy it's even worse since you are in their home.
Again he is not stupid so he will observe first and try to attack in the better opportunity the right opponent, but even with that he still lack resources to conquer China, 40000 it's still too few and knowing nothing about this enemy it's even worse since you are in their home.
lolwut read about Alexander moar plz
hmm I do, and one of the thing that I hated was because he doesn't like to use sneaky tactics that would taint his victories,
yes he integrates many foreigners in his armies "policy of fusion", but that's only those were from lands that he already possess, and not much more.
yes he integrates many foreigners in his armies "policy of fusion", but that's only those were from lands that he already possess, and not much more.
Hydaspes River, 325 BC(E): Alexander has his army parade on the opposite bank of the river from the army of Porus, who is attempting to keep him from crossing. This is done repeatedly so that the Punjabi king falls into a routine, whereupon Alexander leaves a unit under Craterus behind to keep up appearances and immediately countermarches, rapidly crossing the river without opposition.
If that ain't sneaky I don't know what is dude.
Yeah, he had to fight tooth and nail to get those eastern satraps to cooperate with him, definitely didn't play some against the others.
yup, now if you say roman in his best vs china (dynasty Han) , now that would be a tremendous fight, and vicious one... and a one that odds are against china since he lacks professional soldiers, the funny thing is the weakness of both empires would be cavalry, one of the best Alexanders units 
The thing that Alexander had going for him was that he only had to weaken the Persian empire at a very few crucial battles in order to be able to move and control unheeded throughout it. The real unification of the land took Cyrus and Darius well into a half century.
As for China, no political infrastructure could be relied upon to hold the land, and most of the states were extremely formidable because of constant warfare.
As for China, no political infrastructure could be relied upon to hold the land, and most of the states were extremely formidable because of constant warfare.
- Status
Similar threads
