I think if some of you are willing we might pursue this a bit more. I've cleared my plate a bit and thought about how we can collaborate on this. For a start, the Macedonian and Qin armies should be developed independently of eachother, with some broad guidelines we can agree on. Then at an agreed time, we both make the details of these armies 'public' for a battle scenario. I don't want to make this too exhaustive or time consuming, so we do what we can within definite dates by which the next stage of strategy or tactical decision is determined.
For instance; based on some of the battles that have been mentioned (Maling and Yiqui) Qin might have about 120,000 trained troops available to keep her Warring State's rivals at bay, and another army of similar size in the western approaches facing Alexander. In addition, Qin could raise the same number again of militia with reasonably good weaponry once their homeland itself comes under attack.
Unless there is some historical context to prove otherwise, neutral states would tend to resist encroachment by either side. But we may need a random or modified-random probability of the result of negotiations or inducements to change their mind. We also need to work out a simple easy to track logistics system to monitor resource consumption and demand.
...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.
......What would Alexander do? How would the king of Qin react? .....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....
I guess by now you know it is Qin, and I estimated Alexander embarks from Baktra by 310 BC. Are you still interested ? Do you want to represent Qin or Alexander ? I tried to take an even handed approach but clearly some of us have been much more vocal spokesmen for either China or Alexander, so I'll work with the latter, but I think I would like to or be willing to share that with another party. Maybe Flying Pig wants to be on my team !
Chariots were a big part of the Chinese armies but I won't say exclusively. I would say they are the heavy cavalry. I found a Wiki article indicating the first native Chinese cavalry force organized in the Warring States is 307 BC in Zhou, but we can assume Qin had some auxillary cavalry including horse archers recruited from the Yuezhi and other steppe peoples, and some composite or compound bows, not just light crossbows. But try to back it up with some research if you're not sure. My job is easier, the components of Alexander's and Mediterranean based armies at the time is fairly well known.
....I think one of the problems I have with this discussion is that there is an emphasize on statistics and weaponry, and field tactics. But that is a very western view on warfare. China has always saw warfare a little differently. The name Sun Tze has been thrown around alot in this thread, but in the Art of War, the whole point coming from Sun Tze is to NOT engage the enemy, but rather render the enemy incapable of war. In the Art of War, Sun Tze compared warfare as treating an illness, and engaging battle is like taking medicine to address the illness, while sieging a castle would be like doing surgery. Winning a battle will always cause casualties on one's own side, so it's best to not have to battle at all. So the best victory is to win wthout battle. Its very tao.
This is the kind of mentality that Alexander will be facing and I don't think at this point he has faced any society with this sort of thought toward warfare. I think there will be alot of ambushes, and alot of feints by the Chinese and a lot of psychological warfare as demonstrated in battle of Mailing, it really depends on who's on the Chinese side opposite of Alexander.
Something that hasn't been mentioned yet, chemical weapons.
"Sun Tzu's "Art of War" (ca 500 BC) advises the use of fire weapons. In the 4th century BC, writings of the Mohist sect in China describe the use of bellows to pump smoke from burning balls of mustard and other toxic vegetables into tunnels being dug by a besieging army. Even older Chinese writings dating back to about 1000 BC contain hundreds of recipes for the production of poisonous or irritating smokes for use in war along with numerous accounts of their use."
So I think it really depends on who Alexander would face.
I think you would make a great consultant on the Chinese side. Can you find out who the likely general(s) would be on the Qin side, so we can put a name to them, and what kind of tactics they used. This is right after the death of the less than popular King Huiwen. Rather than stressing the composition of armies and weapons you might want to focus on their overall conduct of the war and reaction to certain situations.
If what I remember of Meng Tian's campaign is correct, then the Chinese cavalry is probably something to be reckoned with and not anywhere near entirely chariot-based. Even then, the idea of the Chinese 车 has often presented itself differently from the Mesopotamian/Celtic sort, at least to me.
....
From what I've read, I didn't get the idea that they were the most common Chinese crossbows. In fact, they are portrayed as being rather special and somewhat a niche thing (unlike what games would have you believe). And some of what I've read comes from Chinese scholarship, namely the specifics of the Chinese crossbow - its power, numbers and use.
That is certainly not 150,000 pezhetaroi, hypaspistai and hetairoi and other hippeis, so we have to be careful when assuming a monolithic structure of the entire Alexandrian army.
...
I will try to find some detailed info on the crossbows as I've read them.
....
Field tactics-wise, Alexander might indeed have had an advantage. I think the question is whether the Macedonian phalanx would hold up against the masses of crossbows whose range and penetrating power were serious business, enough to pin the Chinese infantry down for cavalry maneuvers. My guess is no, because the crossbows were quite unlike the nature of the bows the Alexandrian Greeks had faced so far, even the famed composite bow. And we haven't even accounted for the Chinese cavalry.
It looks like you have some insight on Chinese soldier types and capabilities, and I am no expert. I think the illustrations I referenced from DarkNight's history article
Ancient Chinese Soldiers and any of the Wiki articles I dug up, are fair game. But they don't always agree. If using your own sources remember to try to stay within the historical context. For instance, the Terra Cotta Army included some horsemen but also a number of chariots, and it came 100 years after this point in time.
On the other hand, I like the way you use the Greek names for the military formations in this post. Maybe you should be Alexander's Asian ally, I could use some insight into Chinese tactics on my side. Wouldn't that be a twist !
One more thing; I think we will need an unbiased moderator to be occasionally involved as the recipient of our respective plans, and to referee the occasional dispute with some test of reasonableness. Does this sound appealing to you all ? If it does let's start picking our roles.
I don't have the time for this game. Besides, I'd rather just play Europa Barbarorum. It doesn't have Qin, sure, but it has plenty of Greek and Eastern factions. That's good enough for me, especially since it strives to be as historically accurate as possible. It's awesome.
