Alexander the Great vs. China

[aelf]

(monks changed stories? No shite, but who's talking about changing stories anyway?)

The latest Beowulf is horrible by all accounts of the people I know who have actually studied Beowulf. When one takes a text on screen and mutilates it, it generally turns out bad.

I think this talks about changing stories. I may be wrong.

Now enough of this, I am sorry about being immature, and I do not care if we do not like the same movies. Please do not leave this discussion aelf. I do value your opinion, and you always give insightful answers to difficult questions. But one thing is that I do not, or will I ever do drugs, don't say that again. The other thing is that during our heated exchange, neither one of us gave valuable evidence to back up our arguements. It really was my opinion vs. yours, and I will leave it at that, if it is ok with you.

As far as the arguement went I have learned from it and I have learned from you, that the politics behind filmmaking differ from what is displayed openly to the public. Also, that film should be kept in the best interest of the original source material from where it derived. However, I still believe in imagination and that is where the film industry today is lagging in many ways. Too many reality shows and re-makes, not enough imagination to tell new and exciting stories. In any case aelf, let's continue on with Alexander and China

s'alright, droogie. I viddy you're one funny little brother. A malenky spider like to-and-fro, real horrorshow. Fine, let there be no more e-tolchoking, o my brothers. We won't be gloopy ones no more. If thou dost desire we can speak about the flicks elsewhere n' at some other time.

 

[aelf]

Also he lived about two hundred years before this would have happened.

He? Historical consensus seems to be that there are at least 2 people, probably more

 

[Flying Pig]

I don't think he existed - the art of war is a compilation of essays by the generals of Qi.

 

[aelf]

Hmm... I remembered watching some TV show that implied Sun Bin and another guy was responsible for most of Sun Zi Bing Fa. That's why you shouldn't trust the TV.

 

[Dachs]

He? Historical consensus seems to be that there are at least 2 people, probably more

Since when was this thread about historical consensus?

 

[Flying Pig]

I am right; so consensus doesn't matter. Everyone else is wrong

Spoiler :

 

[aelf]

Since when was this thread about historical consensus?

My apologies

 

[vogtmurr]

.....Warring state ,in fact, was the greatest military period in China whereby advanced iron casting technologies were implemented, sophisticated military tactics were proposed( Sun Tzu's Arts of War actually is just one of many other chinese great tactics book), and the emergence of schools of philosophers and generals, although it was the period where the breakout of war is the most frequent in Chinese history. So a warring nation wouldn't be any inferior to a peace and unified nation in term of military strength. One should study more in depth about the history of a civilization lest he would make any insolent and illogical conclusion.

And sorry to interrupt your fantasy( and perhaps others), but I must be honest that in a broadest sense Alexander wouldn't stand any chance even against any one of the 7 states of China at that time(although they were actually more than 7 including the declined imperial court of Zhou). But Mr Alexander might have his Malaria healed with Chinese acupuncture and herbal medicine, and then back to his homeland with some Chinese souvenirs which were presented by the Chinese as a gift to Mr. Alexander unconditional surrender after a horrible fight.

I am no expert on Chinese military history, but what I have read tells me that by 310 BC they did not arm themsleves with steel, the majority of their weapons were wrought iron at best. Bronze only began to be replaced during the Warring States period, much the same as the west. Advanced 'iron casting techniques' is OK for agricultural implements, but quench hardening iron for weapons was known in the middle east since Assyrian times.

Cast iron is rather brittle and unsuitable for striking implements. It can, however, be decarburized to steel or wrought iron by heating it in air for several days. In China, these ironworking methods spread northward, and by 300 BC, iron was the material of choice throughout China for most tools and weapons.

I'm not taking away from the many innovations China had in it's inventory, I think efficient, consistent iron smelting techniques may be one. Elsewhere, in the Mediterranean early steel was making it's appearance.

In the 4th century BC steel weapons like the Falcata were produced in the Iberian Peninsula, while Noric steel was used by the Roman military. Evidence from ancient Sri Lanka show of steel production as early as 300 BC [13] the steel produced was traded in the region and Persia. The Chinese of the Warring States (403–221 BC) had quench-hardened steel,[14] while Chinese of the Han Dynasty (202 BC – 220 AD) created steel by melting together wrought iron with cast iron, gaining an ultimate product of a carbon-intermediate—steel by the 1st century AD

The Chinese cavalry consisted primarily of war chariots, with the first light cavalry units appearing around this time, although it is possible that auxillaries from nomadic tribes also formed part of their army.

I for one, am not giving a clear vote of victory to Alexander, but I am dismissive of the many who want to claim this is not even a contest. My research indicates the repeating crossbows were relatively ineffective against heavy infantry, and the best crossbows were at least matched by good composite bows of the same period. (and that is another long story). This is an alternate history scenario that intrigues us, not a fantasy. I may be insolent, but I'm not illogical.

 

[nokmirt]

s'alright, droogie. I viddy you're one funny little brother. A malenky spider like to-and-fro, real horrorshow. Fine, let there be no more e-tolchoking, o my brothers. We won't be gloopy ones no more. If thou dost desire we can speak about the flicks elsewhere n' at some other time.

Yes and I am sorry for any disrespect

 

[vogtmurr]

.....
......
Warry (1998) estimates a total size of 91,000. Welman estimates a total size of 90,000. Delbrück (1978) estimates a total size of 52,000. Thomas Harbottle estimates 120,000.[1] Engels (1920) and Green (1990) estimate the total size of Darius' army to be no larger than 100,000 at Gaugamela.

I'm familiar with these articles too. There seems to be some consistency in the more rigorous estimates being around 100,000. If other poorly armed and untrained levies showed up, they were of little consequence. But most of this number represented a relatively experienced warrior caste, such as the Bactrian cavalry. The average quality may be inferior to the professional veteran army Philip and Alexander forged, but within this total were all the tools that Darius needed to defeat Alexander, or at least avoid being crushed. There was a big difference in leadership, morale, and execution.

So based on this I would have to believe that the Qin Army of say 310 BCE in your scenario, would be able to compare to Alexander's force.

Definitely - I would venture to say, that even with a strong enough force to watch the frontiers with other warring states, Qin would be able to meet Alexander with approximate parity. The battles of Maling and Yique, which are closest to this scenario represent field forces (presumably trained, front line troops), of 120,000. I suggest for the first encounter, we assume Qin is not fighting a two-front war. Qin had proven its ability to resist multiple states before. We can assume initially, there is no political advantage Alexander can leverage with other states or Shu dissidents within the Qin empire. But I would like to discuss the reactions and encounters with other steppe tribes during Alex's approach as a prelude to this to develop the mechanics of this simulation a bit more.

Now later when Qin was in the process of unifying China, especially during its invasion of Chu, the size of armies, were upwards of one million men for each side. Now at the battle of Changping, 35 years earlier, in 260 BCE, the army of Qin numbered some 650,000, while Zhao had 500,000. Really amazing figures, that come from the records of the Grand Historian, Shiji, the Chinese comparison of Herodotus. My guess is and will probably agree that these figures might be quite exaggerated. The logistics would be impossible. I probably would say at least one hundred thousand for each side during these great invasions, however I along with everybody else have no proof. This is what I base my guess on, due to the problems of logistics of the time, and the limitations of technology of ancient times.

Most of the big battles at the time occurred when two or more states gained up on 1, or in the heart of a state defending its homeland. I think the huge battles later in Qin's road to empire, included large numbers of semi-trained and lesser equipped reserves. Another poster, dknight, suggested the reforms of Shang Yang enabled such 'total war' to be prosecuted. I have found references to both armoured and unarmoured light troops fighting with knife-axes (at up to 18', their equivalent to a sarissa, but maybe more like a halberd in practice) as well as some with cho-ko-nus. It would be fair to assume that once Alex is in Qin's teritory and threatening their cities, that the Qin army could be augmented with a number of such levies able to defend, but maybe not supported on a prolonged campaign.

Dachs how about a rating system for different aspects of the scenario. For instance we could rate Alexander's command ability against the Qin General leading the Chinese army. Let's say the rating system is 1 through 5, with 5 being excellent.

I would start by saying Alexander had the complete advantage in generalship, and his rating is 5. I will give the Qin Chinese comander a 3, because I do not believe they have come into their own just yet. It will be several years later, before they become top notch commanders.

Now if you rate every aspect of the battle in this way, maybe we can formulate a picture of what would happen if there was a war, between Alexander and Qin.

Now everybody can vote on ratings, and it of course is speculation.

Another example would be bow against crossbow. I would give the Chinese a rating of 4 for their crossbow, against a 3 for Alexanders archers.

This is just an idea, and we can use this system from everything from metallurgy of weaponry to which side had better horses. Let me know what you think.

Regarding the commanders, how about we develop a more interesting profile, with two generals each (there might be two of us on each side, in case one gets killed ) There could be modifiers for different aspects, for instance the Qin gets points for prudence and organization, while Alex gets points for charisma, daring, and reaction time. But I appreciate since Alex is a legend, and Qin generals at this time are relatively unknown, you are willing to grant a little more effective bonus to Alex, whatever that ultimately means.

As we start rating these armies, etc. I think any reputable quote or verifiable reference, that is relevant to this setting and time period has to be accepted at face value, unless two are in conflict, then we may need a referee, but I am confident that in the spirit of this thing we can trust eachother to be reasonable. I've got nothing riding on this but having some fun - as long as the deck isn't stacked too high. There is certainly an increase in Qin capabilities as we approach 260 BC and beyond, to the later Han dynasty. We can't compress inappropriate timelines into this scenario, I won't be armed with Roman legions either (but by the way, no Roman legion ever stood up to a frontal attack from a Macedonian phalanx on open ground - according to Wiki).

So for a start, how about we agree there are two grades of crossbow ? There are already numerous references on the cho ko nu, a cheap one for levies and light infantry, and a more powerful composite model that started appearing in bigger numbers in the Han dynasty. I invested quite a bit of energy and research in the debate on bow vs. crossbow, and I'm pretty convinced that good composite bowmen could outrange the crossbows of the day, and unless it is the repeating kind, have a higher rate of fire. So how about we make them equal, with maybe a first strike capability to the better bowmen. Alexander would not have very many of these skilled bowmen anyway, and I'm willing to concede that a larger number of his missile troops would be of lesser power, maybe similar to the cho ko nu. Something like this:

Heavy crossbowman: 4 (+ vs. melee)
Light cho ko nu: 3 (collateral damage)

Cretan bowmen and some similar professional missile troops: 4 (+ 2 first strikes)
Archers: 3 (+ first strike)
Slingers: 3 (+ first strike, withdrawal chance)
Skirmishers, peltasts: 3 and 4 (withdrawal chance)

In addition we each get a free promotion, only for the experienced troops, to add to whatever baseline modifers you think are appropriate to soldiers of these classes. We need a few surprises. And if your idea is to eventually model this in a Civ4 game, I think its the obvious approach.

Dachs: are you interested in being a moderator, participant, or someone we can consult with ? I also think dknight has significant insight into Chinese tactics and strategy - so with your background in Greek history we could use both to obtain balance, in whatever role.

 

[civ_king]

either route Alexander would have taken, his army would be in shambles, through the desert and they would bake, and through the jungle they would suffer all sorts of nasty diseases (and rusted equipment), also how about the logistics of feeding an army extremely far from friendly territory and moral would be extremely low...

Cho ko nu, 10 arrows in 15 seconds versus bows 1 arrow per 6 seconds, somewhat painful? cho ko nu have 130ft range (?) while bows have 135ft range

 

[vogtmurr]

either route Alexander would have taken, his army would be in shambles, through the desert and they would bake, and through the jungle they would suffer all sorts of nasty diseases (and rusted equipment), also how about the logistics of feeding an army extremely far from friendly territory and moral would be extremely low...

Well it's a fair point that has to be considered. I've mapped out a route that is a logical choice, and does not require traversing hundreds of miles of waterless sand. I admit I haven't done any 'logistical calculations', but simply saying it can't be done doesn't convince me, if I can find numerous examples of even bigger armies making the trip. If this is unreasonable, how big should the Chinese army be ? Alex is bringing the resources of a Mediterranean-Middle Esatern Empire only necessary to support his professional army. And I'm not assuming his army has to carry everything on 'its back' they'll need to get from Bakta to Xian. There are a few stops along the way.

 

[civ_king]

Can I see the route? please?

 

[Cipher_101]

That's a bit of a sweeping statement; I think you need to justify it.

I saw the entire arguments in this thread are absolutely based on the presupposition of the posters. Even the title of this thread is already tagged a presumption of "Western neo-colonialism" , why? Because I haven't seen any thread titled "Qin Shi Huang vs Roman Empire", I didn't see "if Attila Hun lives longer and became the emperor of the Eurasia", there is no "if Batu khan didn't retreat from Vienna after Ogedei's death, can he eventually conquered whole Europe Continent?", which definitely has much higher percentage to success than Alex. But why there is no one interested in this topic? It's because inquiring into this topic would just hurt the self-ego of certain people. Therefore, this thread is entirely racial chauvinistic in their presumption.( By the way, there are already some forums other than this hotly discussing about the same issue)

The discussion was quite excellent as a whole though, as I see there were many prudent posters who was really inquiring into the history, weaponry and tactics of the factions. But again I say, there are still mind presets( or for the worse, stereotype) existed inside the mind of the posters that influence the conclusions of them. There are someone who pro-China, somebody who pro-Alex, and some trying to be neutral stances by all odds, they have already draw a conclusion before they could make any investigation. As for me, as a sinner, of course I do have my mind preset, but my mind preset is not trying to be neutral( neutral is also a subjective view), I just try to be scientific and objective(with some humour if got any). If the result is A, it's A, if the result is B, that's B. All that easy.

 

[Cipher_101]

1) Weaponry
First and foremost, let's investigate the weaponry of the factions; there are lists of the most advanced weaponry that could be wielded by the army of both sides:

1.1)Alexander:
Iron weapons and armors: It is not impossible that Alex might plunder some of the iron weaponry from the Minor Asia (or use their army instead) and make use of them. But I doubt the ability of Alex and his army to produce this weapon in large scale due to the fact that iron smelting requires advanced stationary smelters which are lacked by this moving army (they couldn’t just produce iron weapon with excellent with a poor smelter made by mud...)
Percentage 1: Alex realizes the superiority of iron weaponry over bronze and decided to use them—20%.
Percentage 2: Alex produces iron weapons and armors in large scale or import from his conquered nations.--50%
Percentage 3: Alex faces Chinese army with battalions of Ironmen.-10%
Conclusion: Stick to the bronze...

Long-range weapons:
There are no evidences that Alex had ever used crossbow in his battle, therefore bows and catapults might be the only long-ranged weapons in his arsenal. Alex might recruit some bowmen from Persia which employed composite bow as their main long-range weapons. But majority of his archers would still consist of more the mercenary bowmen from Crete Island which used slightly inferior bow.
Percentage 1: Alex was able to bring his formidable Greek Catapults to face the ancient Chinese fortress and city which is surrounded by walls.—0.1%(he even couldn’t bring them to India, it would take decades to reach China)
Percentage 2: Alex employed sufficient number of formidable long-ranged weapons to face Chinese army—5%
Conclusion: He might have some bowmen, but it’s still not enough. Unless the Chinese wall was made by cheese.

Close-ranged army:
Needless to say, Alex’s army consists of the most excellent and disciplined soldiers of Greece and Macedonia. Most of his army also coated with heavy bronze armor, this would make his army almost impenetrable by primitive arrows. The efficiency of his army also pushed to the peak under the command of Alex, the talented and gifted general of the time. I think it’s useless to describe this in detail because most westerners are already familiar with it.
Conclusion: Almost certainty, heavy cavalry, phalanx and hoplites would be the biggest threat of Alex’s army to Chinese.

 

[Cipher_101]

1.2) Chinese
Iron Weapons and Armors:
Chinese must has already employed iron weapons and even steel weapons as their conventional weapons if they were to face the army of Alex. Iron had already been widely used in the agricultural sector and was produced industrially during the Spring and Autumn era. By the time of early Warring States Period, iron casting has been widely used according to the archeological discoveries at Jiang Su Liu He Province. The Chinese of the Warring States had also developed the quench-hardened steel.
Percentage 1: Chinese would employ majority of their army with steel. – 5% (Maybe yes for the general and officers, but mass production of steel for military purpose was still impossible at that time).
Percentage 2: Iron weaponry and armors are employed widely among the Chinese army.—75%( Bronze weapon still have its place in Chinese arsenal especially during the warring states period whereby the development of bronze technology is at the apex)
http://www.cgw.cn/jspd/C_jspd_jswqx_zgld_gbqy_gudaiwuqi_info_271.Html
Conclusion:
By all means, this would be a battle between Bronzemen and Mixmen.

Long-ranged Weapons:
http://ppyx.idshop.cn/article.asp?article_id=1609637
http://news.zbedu.net/ywkt/user1/zhainaiye/122590.html
Besides catapults, crossbowmen and bowmen were the standard long-ranged units in every decisive combat during warring state period. However, most westerners often underestimated the technologies and firepower of Chinese long-ranged weapons. This is mostly due to the deficient of English sources regarding this topic. Therefore, I had made references to several Chinese websites which have more detailed and pertinent descriptions regarding these lethal weapons.
Crossbow:
There are varieties of types of crossbows used in Chinese army, differences exist between nations. Crossbow has a slower firing rate compared to ordinary bow, but in turn it has greater damage and range depends on size and weight of crossbow, a heavy-weight Chinese crossbow actually shoot out spears instead of bolts.
During Warring State Period, Most of the crossbows were made with bronze. There are three parts that constitute a Chinese crossbow, Bi (Body), Xuan(String), and Wang Shan (aimer). Chinese crossbow has a greater accuracy compared to bow due to the specialized aimer Wang Shan 望山and the separated movement of string stretching and aiming. A even larger crossbow would require a basement frame(弩&#24202.
In general, there are three types of Crossbow during warring states according to their string stretching :
(a) Bi Zhang Nu(臂张&#24361:literally arm-stretched crossbow. It was the earliest type of Chinese crossbow, shorter range but easier to maneuver. The earliest account of this type of crossbow mechanism was “Sun Bin’s Art of War”( Not Sun Tzu, it was written by a great Qi’s strategist named Sun Bin who lived at the midst of Warring State Period and died at 316 BC), with a shooting range of 100 “Bu”(&#27493 or about 138.6 meter.
(b) Jue Zhang Nu(蹶张&#24361: literally stamp-stretched crossbow. The crossbowmen employing this weapon use leg to stretch out the string instead of arm, in order to overcome the heavy resistance force of the bow. But once it shoots out the bolt, it has been proved to be a terrifying weapon. The Jue Zhang crossbow of Han faction has an effective range of 600 “Bu” or around 800 meter.
(c) Repeating Crossbow: Chinese had many inventions, and Chokonu is inevitably the most favorite Chinese military invention among many video games( AOE, CIV 4 etc) besides gunpowder and rocket. However, I have to make it clear that Chokonu was just an alternative to Chinese arsenal, and it actually wasn’t mentioned much in most of the Chinese ancient text. The reason that Chokonu has this special position may be due to its uniqueness and it was the only ancient chinese weaponry that didn’t imported to and hasn’t been exploited by the western and Arab. Basically Chokonu is a Bi Zhang Nu, it has to sacrifice the accuracy( with the aimer or Wang Shan being replaced by the bolts box) and firepower in order to get a faster shooting rate. Therefore it is only suitable to counter a large mass of army in close-ranged battle.

Bow:
The first Chinese Composite Bow was the Qin Bow and Chu Bow dated from Spring and Autumn Period, they are built using bamboo and horn. Although it has a lower accuracy and damage than the mechanical crossbow, its flexibility and maneuverability grant it a greater strategic value than the cumbersome crossbow. Inevitably, composite bow was still the main long-ranged weapons of Chinese army due to its simplicity and mass production.

Percentage 1ercentage of Cho-Ko-Nu being employed in the first encounter.—60-80%.
Percentage 2: Percentage of mechanical crossbow to percentage of composite bowmen in Chinese long ranged units.—30%:40%
Conclusion: Enjoy the rain fall!

Firearms:
Yup, not gunpowder, but the usage of fire as a tactic to repel enemy. “Sun Tzu Art of War” used a whole chapter to depict the strategy of using fire weapon. As early as the Spring and Autumn Period, Saltpeter and sulfur has been widely known by the Chinese, along with oil and rosin, they were used to make the flaming arrows or flaming ball which would be thrown by a catapult, causing devastating effect.
Percentage 1: Firearms employed by Chinese army—30% depending on the strategy
Percentage 2: Alex’s soldiers have magical resistance to fire damage—0%.
Conclusion: After the shower, it’s time to have a sauna.

Poison:
Poison has been another strategic weapon to be used in Chinese army. They mostly used Aconitum as the source of their poison. The poison is then applied to the arrow head, even a single scratch from the arrow would cause the enemy to die within minutes. Besides, as early as 400 BC , poison gas had been used to counterattack the enemy trying to sneak into a city using underground tunnel.
Percentage 1: The first barrage of Chinese archers and crossbowmen are poisoned.—5%(There is no evidence that poison arrows have been adopted as the main weaponry during warring state period albeit the widely usage of poison as tool of assassination)
Percentage 2: Alex is invited to a Chinese banquet and is poisoned to death.—5%( ridiculous but not impossible)
Conclusion: Poison was the most humane execution in ancient world.

 

[Cipher_101]

2) COMBAT ODD:
Now, let’s put those factors above together and examine the military strength of Chinese and Alexander’s army:
Closed Combat odd: Chinese-70%, Alex-30%
--Comparing the type of weapons used, the long spears wielded by Greek Phalanx surpass the Chinese shorter dagger-spear in term of damage range. But as stated by other posters before, Greek Phalanx is vulnerable to flank attack, and Chinese strategy favored surprise strike, usually from a flank or rear direction. And even though Chinese didn’t apply iron weapons to whole army, the bronze weapons that Chinese was using still surpass the bronze weapons of Alex army due to a better bronze smelting and alloying technology.

Ranged Combat odd: Chinese-99%, Alex-1%
--Needless to say. Fire arrows and fire balls, poison, penetrating arrow barrage, and perhaps some catapulting, would tear whole Alex army apart, if not into pieces.

Whole Combat odd: Chinese-85%, Alex-15%
--Comparing the factors of what I have been discussing before, this is a battle odd of two great civilizations. I didn’t take other factors (tactics, geography, morale, number, supply, local resistance) into account, because taking these would just make China too overwhelmed to Alex.

Verdict: Final conclusion is made, sadly to say, Alexander was defeated. No imagination left.

 

[aelf]

Bow:
The first Chinese Composite Bow was the Qin Bow and Chu Bow dated from Spring and Autumn Period, they are built using bamboo and horn. Although it has a lower accuracy and damage than the mechanical crossbow, its flexibility and maneuverability grant it a greater strategic value than the cumbersome crossbow. Inevitably, composite bow was still the main long-ranged weapons of Chinese army due to its simplicity and mass production.

A lot of what you stated confirms much of what I've said earlier about the Chinese, except for this. From what I've read, virtually all the regular Chinese infantry had crossbows. That might be truer of the Han Dynasty, but perhaps 30-40% is about as big the proportion of regular infantry would be when taking levies into account here?

Besides, I believe composite bows were actually quite difficult to produce and were very valuable everywhere. Crossbows, on the other hand, could be mass-produced and require relatively little training to use at that. So I just want to know if what you said about the extensive use of the composite bow versus the crossbow is indeed true. Any of your sources talk about this? Sorry, my Chinese is no longer good enough for me to read those pages in reasonable time

 

[Cipher_101]

A lot of what you stated confirms much of what I've said earlier about the Chinese, except for this. From what I've read, virtually all the regular Chinese infantry had crossbows. That might be truer of the Han Dynasty, but perhaps 30-40% is about as big the proportion of regular infantry would be when taking levies into account here?

Besides, I believe composite bows were actually quite difficult to produce and were very valuable everywhere. Crossbows, on the other hand, could be mass-produced and require relatively little training to use at that. So I just want to know if what you said about the extensive use of the composite bow versus the crossbow is indeed true. Any of your sources talk about this? Sorry, my Chinese is no longer good enough for me to read those pages in reasonable time

The earliest evidence of Chinese Composite Bow comes from the excavation of Chu bow, which is constituted of bamboo and horn. While the self bows are made by single wood. It showed that composite bow has already been used extensively in Chinese army alongside the ordinary self bow( at least for Chu). For further information, you can go for wikipedia and search for composite bow.

Actually one of the ancient Chinese text KaoGongJi考工记( "The Records of Examination of Craftsman" written around the end of Spring and Autumn Period)mentioned about the making of a bow. There is no academic translation to English yet. By the way, this book did mentioned 6 parts of a Chinese bow, 干、角、筋、胶、丝、漆, or limb, horn, string, glue, silk, paint. And it mentioned 6 materials available to make the limb, listed in ascending order of their quality-竹(bamboo),荆(bramble),木瓜(papaya?),橘(?),檿桑(?),檍(?),柘(?)。 it also states the difference of the horn used by the age of cow, and the influence of weather on the making of composite bow. The rest of the text is Greek to me, beat me, it's classical chinese...

By analyzing the materials I could conclude that composite bow existed in China at early as the Spring and Autumn Era. As horn was one of the popular Composite Bow's material. The limb might be one of the 6 materials that I mentioned above, glue is used to laminate the horn part and the limb part, and silk might be used to wrap around the connection part in order to strengthen the lamination. While paint is used to protect the bow in humid condition.

 

[Flying Pig]

Closed Combat odd: Chinese-70%, Alex-30%
--Comparing the type of weapons used, the long spears wielded by Greek Phalanx surpass the Chinese shorter dagger-spear in term of damage range. But as stated by other posters before, Greek Phalanx is vulnerable to flank attack, and Chinese strategy favored surprise strike, usually from a flank or rear direction. And even though Chinese didn’t apply iron weapons to whole army, the bronze weapons that Chinese was using still surpass the bronze weapons of Alex army due to a better bronze smelting and alloying technology.

That's in an infantry crush - Alexander proved very good at getting a front-on-front attrition fight, and he had the single best army ever - and skilled cavalry. The Greek tactic had proved its worth for chewing through large numbers of men many times.