The time frame happens to be during Warring States Period, and if Alexander the Great attacked from the west into China, the first state to encounter would probably be Qin, the most war-like and powerful military state at that time...

If Alexander the Great invaded China , what would happen? Could he have conquered China?

if alexenders cavalry has been destroyed the slow compact phalanx would be easy prey for crossbows and horse archer,so if qin can take out alexenders cavalry Qin will win for sure

For detail military information about Qin army during warring states period, please refer to

http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/index.php?showtopic=135

Maps of Warring States period..


Warring states Period (Early period)


Warring states Period (Later period)

His army was not willing to follow him on further conquests beyond the edge of the known world...so I doubt he would be able to project his power so far.
But assuming he didnt die in mysterious circumstances and had an chance to consolidate (as he was a good adminstrator too) and marched eastward.
If he was to appear on Qins flanks while the struggle for China was stil raging he would be a major annoyance to Qin. Their position on the fringes of the central plains states is said to be one of their advantages...a secure territory from which to attack the other Warrign States.
Alexander could never conquer China once united as the numbers of battles to be fought and size of Chinese armies would be immense. WIthout the collapse of Qin authority he could not, i.e timed during the revolts/uprising again Qin.
Timing would be everything so since ALexander predates Qins victory he could be viewed as another factor, or a Warrign State lord in himself. Even if he pulled off success against Qin he would still encounter many other states on a war footing with strong desires for survival.
At best he would either tilt the balance of the Warring States powers against Qin (as it would be a perfect time for Chu to launch a full assault from the other side) and perhaps influence a different state emerging victorious.
Perhaps other smaller states might even seek to contact Alexander and offer him supply in return for a war of proxy against the feared Qin. SO many temporary alliances and changes of fortune occured during the Warrign States this could be a great chance for revenge if these foreign tribe of Macedonians and allies could be lured into serving another states purpose with a sutiable reward.
The political and strategic shift of balances of power is more intersting than the obligatory 'who had the better weapons' argument that wil follow.
Alexander might need to be seen beyond the purely military (as he was a capable and threatening force) and perhaps as a Warlord and political force also.

I did this thread in another forum before...

Odd. The state of the Qin is the youngest amongst all, and they occupied their land through bloody conquests. The position of the Macedonians will be in the northwestern wastelands. Great place to get killed by the Xiongnu, who are growing into a competent power.


Alexander could never conquer China even before it was united. The Qin authority is no danger of collapse in the 360-328 BC. The reformation of Gongsun Yang has given Qin a new government system way beyond any of those in the Central Plains. The army of the Qin is second to none. And plus, the 6 states are not all viewing Qin as a threat.

I would like to ask you what you meant by predating Qin victory since the post-reformation Qin has being winning victories and carrying out adroit diplomatic manoeuvers to seize the best result for themselves (pro-active diplomacy). There is little chance thhe could pull off any success against the Qin especially when the Qin army will most certainly adopt the strategem of Yi Yi Dai Lao (allowing Alex to tire out himself).


Nope. The balance of power is still strongly vested in the hands of Qi and not the Qin yet. Qin supremacy will come latter after Zhang Yi's tenure as premier of Qin. The state of Qi, way east at Shandong, is the biggest power in China at this time.

The state most likely to contact Alexander will be Qin itself, and both are highly likely to pursue aggression against each other. The many temporary alliances etc are post Shang Yang era, and Alexander is coming in the era of Shang Yang (360-328 BC). And you have said it yourself. The foreign tribe of Macedonians. No Chinese state will ever want to be allied with a foreign tribe. Those that did are viewed as traitor states and the rest will be allied against it. The states of Jin and Qi did not carry out huge campaigns against the northern nomads for fun. They did it to protect the central plains in the motto of Zun Wang Nang Yi (respecting the Son of Heaven and sweeping away the barbarians).


Not interesting when you have dealt with these type of topics once in a while, and me knowing that you probably just don't like my answers. Alexander will never be accepted Warlord or political force in China of the Warring States era when a non-Chinese state of Zhongshan, powerful in military, with elite soldiers clad in iron scale and scoring countless victories against Zhao and Wei, succumbed at last to the combined arms of the Central Plains. Zhongshan is a most excellent analogy of the Macedonians. And plus, they're even more alien to the Chinese at that time. The appearance of the Macedonians might unite China sooner than expected and possibly invoke a western march by the newly emerged Chinese empire.

Before it all goes down to convoluted discussion again, the moderator proposes that the proponent of the argument state:

1. Their stand
2. 3 reasons why their side will have the upper hand
3. And 2 reasons why the advantage or reasons offered by the other side is uncertain and void.

I don't know why you 'know' that. This forum is about discussing history...so thanks for your points.
I concede you are probably right about the power of states at the time...but the argumnet seemed to be one based on Qin as the opponent, and didnt specify his route which will still be from the West...and this dates to before final Qin victory.
Your point on the presence of Macedonians advancing might even cause some Chinese states to band together long enough to evict them is a valid one. It may well work out he is a common enemy.

As for the confusion about .


I mean Alexander wasn't around to see China after Qin final victory..... he lived at an earlier time. I dont mean that QIn never had any earlier victory or defeats, or didnt persue diplomacy and manipulation either. It was the nature of the times. Qin victory equals defeating all the Warrign States.
&

Exactly. Maybe my paragraph jumped from period to period but I said he could never conquer unified China, nor could he face all the Warring States even if succesful against Qin...I also never said that the revolts against Qin are during the Warring States as I am quite aware that they bought down the young dynasty. My comment about 'timing' is that success might be influenced precisely by when he faced Qin...on the rise or on the collapse......but that he wasn't around at the time of unification anyway so I moved onto discussing the possible Warring States attitutude to his entry.

All only my opinion though...and you are entitled to yours. I am envisaging any way that he could be a feature at the time in opposition against Qin so only provided speculatives. Yours provide new considerations for me.
I do not rate his chances against China as a whole at any time...but the idea Qin would just adopt this or that tactic and be assured of 'ALex's' defeat assumes the other person is a puppet who won't pre-empt or counter any strategy bought against him.
Qin was hardly invulnerable to defeats over its long history.
Consider this a devils advocate again, as I don;t care to champion Alexander but just the 'do this and he will fail' summary assumes the other General plays the game by rules you offer him.

Anyway, I strongly advocate the following of the instructions stated on post 8 for future discussions. I'll be playing moderator of the debate for this thread. I'll be watching it closely.

Hi Everyone,
I'm a greenhorn in history, so I'm not as knowledgeable as everyone here but I do have some opinion. I personally feel that Alexander could not have conquer China. Why?
Because

1)The warring states are no weakling.
The people there are no weakling. They work very hard like doing agriculture work and hunting. This make them strong unlike during the opium war where the people are weak. So they are strong physically. They have people of strong intellect. These people are strategist. So this make things more difficult.


2)Distance between China and Alexander and size
Suppose if Alexander arrive in China and he fought one of the power in China, he would face military resources shortages. If his army suffer losses, how is he going to replenish them. His power is in the west(faraway). A huge army require lots of supply. His opponent would be able to replenish faster as the war take place in their territory. At that time, I'm sure that China also have a huge population. During the war between China and United States over Korea, the United States have strong weapon but there were times when they were defeated. The reason is because China have a huge population. For every 10 chinese people die, 1 American die. The Chinese can afford it.



3)Geographical Problem(China is big)
Since he just arrive and China is so big, he would not be able to understand the terrains or places, languages. By the time he try to understand, he would have been wipe out. One of the reason why Napoelon Bonaparte lose was because he did not have a comprehensive map on Russia. He thought that he could reach Moscow but didn't. He did not even understand the climate. If Alexander attack, he would face the same problem.


4) A good target
While it is possible that an alliance could be forge between Alexander and one of the power. Suppose if your are in a life and death situation, in order to survive, you need to cooperate with another party eventhough you don't like it.
There could be another possibility, the cooperation between the powers to drive out Alexander since he is not a Chinese. The foreigners are good target because of the colour of their skin. If you are on the run, you won't be able to mix into the civilians because of skin colour and language.




5) Transportation
To reach China, it would take a long time unles you have vehicles like cars. If there are cars, it might be possible but still difficult. With the technology that they have, it's very difficult. Reaching it need lots of time and we haven't counted time needed for exploration and conquering.

6)Immortaliy
Humans are not immortal, so it is not possible to have that much of time.


Finally I would like to apologise for my ignorances. I'm just giving my opinion. I know many of you here are expert.

All seven states were heavily armed and had huge standing armies.
The problem with Alexander would be that he would be seen as an alien.
The warring states era was still part of the Zhou dynasty and had obligations to protect the Zhou throne and prevent none central plain states invading the Central plains.
There are just too many examples of warring states putting away thier differences and ally together to defeat an alien threat.

Alexander's army was smaller then any one of the states armies and
Alexander would had to face armies of ALL seven kingdoms combined.

The Greek people are strong physically to.And of course Alexander knew strategy too.

what good miltary strategists and generals did the 7 kingdoms have at that time?

Yes, the greek people are strong but so are the chinese. This means that if we compare one to one, there would not be much of a difference but the other factors would have ensured the greek defeat. The distance and numbers. If we calculate the advantages and disadvantages of both the greek and chinese generally in term of the factors which I have said, the chinese would have a more advantage position. If the greek don't attack, they won't face this kind of situation but if they attack, they would be defeated for sure. If the chinese attack the west, they would also face such a kind of predicament but the differences could be the population factor. If a country goes on a conquering spree, he would need more people to guard and administer these places. If not enough people are put on a conquered place, they could very well be revolt from the locals. If this happen, the main forces supply route could be cut off and it would not be easy to retreat back to the west. It's the same with the west and east situation. The area is too wide. By the time a place is conquered, the previous conquered places would face revolt because not enough people could be use to supress the rebellion. The only way to ensure a safe passage is to move the civillians( make them into a majority race) to a conquered place and then after a very long time(grow), the territory would be permanently belonging to the conquering force but of course to ensure a more permanent status, the locals would need to be drive out or killed. This need a very very long time to achieve.If you just conquered and put some military force there, the conquered territory would not be permanent. If Alexander stretch his military forces so wide, how much would he have left by the time he arrive in China. If he does not stretch his army, the conquered territories would not last long. In the end, lots of trouble would pop out. A long campaign against China would reduce resources and strength of the attacking forces. If at that time while he is so faraway from his country and he move large amount of military power out of his country, this means his country strength would be weaken and if this time another forces which is weaker than his forces attack his country, he would end up losing his own country and his empire would break up. By the time he arrive back to his country, everything would be over.

I do not know of people who are extremely strong during the warring states as I'm not an expert in the era of warring states. What I do know is more about the 3 kingdoms era. I know of some extremely strong people during that era. One of them was Guan Yu. He was very strong and of big build. His weapons is very very heavy. I heard it from my friend. Even I wondered how this man could carry such weapon and swing it. The only possibility is that he must be of very big size and strong. I also heard of something else. This man could knock down tree with one blow. If there was such people during 3 kingdom period, then the past could very well also have such kind of people. Nowadays, human's size are much smaller compare to a thousand years ago. It is like we are shrinking.

I do not know their names but what I did hear was story from what the chinese call "cheng yu". They made "cheng yu" into story. The people in it use tricks to fool their enemy. I do not remember those story but I must say they are clever. Some I think are from Qi. I think some are also from Qin and Yan.

I'm not expert in that period but I'm sure some people from this forum would know who these people are.

By the way, anyone know which province now in China was Yan located. If possible, could anyone tell me where the others are located too. I looked at the map which General Zhao Yun posted but I could not recognise the province.

Hi Ming-Loyalist,
You words have enlighten me. As I've said I'm not an expert. So the information which you have provided really enlighten me. I agree with what you have said.

Kongming, it appears that most of what you know about Chinese history is based on hearsay and myths. The Guan Yu of history never carried the weapon carried by the Guan Yu of the novel. The reason why people of the past seem so big and strong is because myth-making has made them larger than life. That said, there were indeed some unusually large and strong people in Chinese history, just like in the history of any other country.

Welcome to CHF - I believe your knowledge of Chinese history will improve very quickly if you come here more often!

Well, cheng yü (成语) is a good way to get to know Chinese history and intelligence of the ancients.

Here are some cheng yü related to military strategies/events from the period:

(1) Retreat 90 miles (退避三舍) - 632BC, Battle of Cheng Pu (城濮, in present day ShanDong province), the Jin (晋) army "retreated" in the face of the Chu (楚) army to gain moral high ground as well as strategic and tactical advantages. Jin's victory elevated the Duke Wen of Jin (晋文公) to be the foremost hegemonist of the era.

(2) Besiege the State of Wei to rescue the State of Zhao (围魏救赵) - 354BC, a strategy deployed by Sun Bin, the military advisor to the forces of the State of Qi, to rescue the State of Zhao which was being invaded by the State of Wei. Instead of rushing to relieve Han Dan (邯郸), the besieged capital of Zhao, Sun Bin suggested to the Qi's general Tian Ji (田忌) to march against Da Liang (大梁), the capital of Wei, instead. As expected, the ruler of Wei was forced to recall the bulk of his troops which was attacking Zhao to deal with the forces of Qi. Sun Bing then laid an ambush to intercept the returning army of Wei. This strategy enabled him to chose the site of the ambush, rest his troops to defeat the anxious Wei soldiers who exhausted themselves through the force march.

(3) Deploying the unexpected to achieve victory (出奇制胜) - The State of Qi was invaded by an alliance of other states led by the State of Yan, losing more than 70 cities, with only 2 cities of Jü and Mo remaining. The allied troops departed, leaving only the forces of Yan (燕) under General Yue Yi (乐毅) besieging the Jü. Wanting to win over the hearts and minds of the Qi people, Yue Yi did not pressed the attack but tried to play a waiting game. The leader of Qi resistance, Tian Dan (田单), made use of the opportunity to sow discord between Yue Yi and his new master when the ruler of Yan died. With Yue Yi replaced by an inept commander, Tian Dan tricked the forces of Yan into committing atrocities to arouse the passion of the Qi natives. When he judged the time was right, he despatched agents to feign submission to the Yan army to lower their vigilance. That night, Tian Dan herded the bulls in the city, painting them with wild patterns of colours, sharpened their horns and then set them charging into the Yan army camp by setting their tails on fire. The Yan troops panicked, the Qi forces attacked and drove them out of their state, recovering their lost territories.



Roughly the HeBei province. The capital of Yan was Ji, which is in the vicinity of present day Beijing.

The State of Qi was roughly present day ShanDong province.
The State of Chu at its height occupied present day Hunan, Hubei, Chongqing, Henan, and parts of Jiangsu.
The State of Wei lay between the states of Qin and Qi and included areas in modern Henan, Hebei and Shanxi and Shandong.

OK. After viewing the preliminary replies, I will be dividing you guys into teams. Yun and I will act as moderators of this debate while correcting historical intricacies, background information, updates etc. Please, for one more time:

1. State your stand before presenting your case.
2. The debate will begin as soon as there's at least 3 people on each side. Do not worry about playing Devil's Advocate or anything. This is a great opportunity to learn about both the Macedonian army and the Warring States army in 350-300 BC.

i think i will speak for Macedon.I have nothing against the warring states and i do not like one of the nations more than the other but i know most about Macedon.

My knowledge of Alexander is too limited.....and I think he would have to do well to defeat ONE state. He did knock out the Persians, but there are so many leaders in China and able men his tasks are numerous...not to mention population.
I hope it is a chance to explore Alexanders military because I could do with some info beyond history channel!

MingKong I liked a lot of your first posts points. Yes, the Chinese were vigourous and physical then. LAter Chinese might advance according to exhaustive knowledge of classics but this was one time when a peasant could rise by strength, ability and cunning to lead men.
As for 'people shrinking' it may be simply the tales are what grow, and characters become mythical. By most accounts even up untill recent decades height can be influenced by childhood protien and nutrition. The people today are generally taller than earlier populations....including Europeans.
I have three bronze sword hilts that date from HAn to 3 Kingdoms (hope to get a better dating shortly after reviewing my friends texts when I am in Taiwan). Almost all people who hold the hilts will immediately say...'wow. they had very small hands'. The person I bought them from even wondered if some were from children or women in his book(he is a big guy) . I am sure they are just a reflection of the size of the adult population. A hard childhood makes for a smaller adult man....on average Chinese are not as large as other races today either. A visiting Chinese was driving in the car with us and asked 'why are NZers so big?' We have Polynesians here...who are BIG (even the pre-historic Maori are 6 footers)and the whole Kiwi population would tend to play rugby or soccer or hockey or something instead of learning calligraphy or piano/cello like my Chinese nieces and nephews. The Chinese I see happen to be priveledged however so are hardly working class labourers.....and when I see my Wushu instructor cartwheel through the air holding a sword and landing in a crouch position that would break my body I have no doubt training is what produces a strong body (as the old Chinese stories themselves relate).
When I look at the QIn warriors however I can see they are tough men that they were modelled on. I have no doubt they were warriors equal to any nations...their faces and their builds show capable proffesionals.
As for conscripted rural folk....even with a years training I wonder about the effects of poor nutrition during childhood affecting stature.

Kind of off the point.
My vote is for a limited tactical success for Alexander against a single state AT BEST.

Thanks, Snowbeagle.

Thanks, Yun. As to the size between human nowadays and in the past, that I do no know but last time I did see a documentary of big and heavy weapons which they found in China. So I'm not sure whether we are shrinking or not. If you look at creatures during the dinosaur ages and today. Are most trees and animals getting smaller or bigger. I believe this is base on what we compare. They could be exceptions. But generally most are getting smaller.

I understand what you mean by the novel. As for debating, I'm not an expert in history, and I won't be able to analyse without information, so I won't participate but I will still be here to learn something from everyone and for the information provided, I would do anaylsis on it.The points which I put in are merely general view. For expert in here, maybe you all could anaylse the territories which Alexander had conquered. See the reason why they were defeated and is the situation similiar to those in China and is such invasion possible. See the military strength of the territories which he had conquered and their intelect compare to China at that time.

I believe this is a great place to learn history, Yun. Thanks, everyone.

Hi, Kenneth. I have heard of the Maori. You're right, they are of big size but generally if we compare the entire human population of the past and history, are we getting smaller or bigger? I don't know. As for what we eat and genes, that I agree with you.Thanks, Kenneth.

I went to an exhibition on display in Bejiing's natural history museem, and along one wall was a life sized comparison of average height of occupants unearthed tombs across the ages. I seem to remember that average height peaked at 1.9 meters some 4000 years ago and declined to 1.6 meters 2000 years ago. The speculation was that there was a massive food shortage between that period and resulted in shorter adults.

Hi Koolasuchus, thanks for the information and nice meeting you here.

OK. The motion is as follows (new members will be added as time goes).

Team Alexander, champion of Hellas, beloved of Athena and the Gods:
Kenneth and Norseman.

We need people for Team Warring States.

I've never heard of a shrinking theory before.

But as far as I know (and going to the Museum of Natural History, USA), humans have been getting consistantly taller. There's always been variety, of course, but averaged out we're getting bigger.

I could be a member of team Warring States if you don't get anyone.

OK.

Team Warring States:
TMPikachu (need more people).

Anyway, based on alphabetical order, Team Alex gets to start their motion first. Lets drop the size argument for a while and get the debate underway.

Team Alex is allowed 3 posts to present:
1. 3 top reasons why Alexander will be able to win.
I urge the rest of the forum not to present counter arguments until the formulation of Team Warring States is complete. And once again, discussions not pertaining to the topic at hand is not entertained. Please set up other threads for the size argument.

"Alexander will never be accepted Warlord or political force in China of the Warring States era when a non-Chinese state of Zhongshan, powerful in military, with elite soldiers clad in iron scale and scoring countless victories against Zhao and Wei, succumbed at last to the combined arms of the Central Plains. Zhongshan is a most excellent analogy of the Macedonians."

Zhong Zhang wasn't destroyed by an alliance, the state of Zhao alone did it, after Zhao Wu Lin Wang introduced the nomadic cavalry, he conquered the Zhong Shang in around 300 b.c. in the eastern Ordos.


This topic is already replied, its pointless, there is ghost of a chance Alexander would even reach Qin.

"what good miltary strategists and generals did the 7 kingdoms have at that time?"

Sun Bing might be still alive. The last battle he faught was Ma Lin in 341 b.c. nothing more is herd of him afterwards.

Hi friend warhead.

You must agree that Zhong Shan was defeated by both the Wei and Zhao in a number of occasions after the death of the great Zhong Shan king (I forgot his name...). Zhao did the killing blow but the Wei also campaigned successfully against it earlier (the one led by Le Yang).

Plus, I have the intention of keeping this topic as a testing ground of forum debate mediated by a forum moderator to see how it will turn out. Will you care to join us?

macedons have companion cavalry,right?
is it elite and best cavalry in europe?
how it can fight with the chinese cavalry armed with crossbow and bow?

The biggest macedonian army/force(i dont know if this amount was as much as they could field at a time or if it was the whole macedonian army) consisted of 80 000 infantry and 8000 cavalry.

Did the Chinese use chariots at this time?

Edit: My source says that Alexanders mobile peltasts and Agrians(infantry) could easily defeat chariots(but it does not explain how )

Yes. Chariots are still used by the Chinese armies at this time, the time of consideration being 350-300 BC. The crossbow has already been invented (by the state of Chu) and in widespread use since it is easier to train crossbowmen than archers.

And why isn't anyone responding to my moderation?

For the last time:
Team Alex is allowed 3 posts to put down why they think Alexander will have an advantage over the Chinese army. Do not waste your posts.

I am not taking a side.
I would agree with Warhead that in truth Alexander would never get to China, so it becomes hard to say what does he turn up with to face Qin? 80,000? his tropps reduced by fighting along the way? 10,000? or does he pick up auxiallaries by a slow conquests and arrive an old man with an expanded Eastern empire and 120,000 troops?
In reality is army refused to march any further east despite his many victories, they had enough and wanted to enjoy what they had gained. wasn't that what ended his campaigns?

I don't mind who wins, but I am interested to hear real stats on the Macedonians and the various states contemporary to it.

I hope I didnt just use up one of Norsemans posts to cop out!

OK. If you're not taking a side you can be a participating audience.

Team Alex:
Norseman

Team Warring States:
TMPikachu

Yes, so history pretty much proved he can't conquer China<since he's soldiers pretty much refused to go on, thinking that they'll walk off the edge of the world and fall eternally...>. Although if his army somehow came to China with the same morale they started out with<which they didn't>, then I'll let you people discuss it.

The chance of him conquering all of Zhong Yuan is as slim as the Nazi dream of ruling the world. Conquering Qin would be as improbable as the Nazi overthrowing the United States. There isn't even a need to compare the armies. All Qin have to do is close its gates around the walls, and the Macedonian army will eventually run out of logistic and withdraw.

Here is what I posted in the other thread ( http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/index.php...0&#entry4746306 ) about Alexander the Great attacking China:

I don't mean to be rude, but this question is obviously impossible to answer in any meaningful way. How, exactly, do you intend for him to march all the way to the kingdom of Qin? How would anybody be able to figure out the military outcome, or even the composition of the army that Alexander would have to raise in the process of travelling from Hellas to China? Finally, even if we could predict with any real certainty the outcome of Alexander fighting against the ZhanGuo kingdoms, how the hell are they supposed to mount a counter-attack across the entire Eurasian continent in the event that Alexander retreats or is killed?

Let me entertain the question for a moment, but any answer we give is going to be worthless. Supposing Alexander marched all the way to China, which flies in the face of both history and geography, then let us say that he wins. For him to win, he'd have to crush all of the kingdoms in the region, and then he'd be stuck with an empire stretching across almost the entire Eurasian world. When he dies, it would fall apart like his smaller empire did in reality, and most likely the Chinese would find themselves under one of Alexander's original Hellenic buddies, and would be a Successor state for a while. Perhaps the outcome of the wars between the Successor states would be different, but that's really out of our scope.

Supposed Alexander loses, however, then China is supposed to counter-attack. I don't know how that would be possible, considering that China was not a unified entity, and the various kingdoms would most likely be far more interested in killing each other. The idea that any Chinese kingdom would decide to raise an army large enough to hold all the territory in the Hellenic world and then go charging outside the borders of the known world in pursuit of some remote, mysterious empire that no longer holds any threat is rather silly at best. The idea of either side marching a giant army against the other is inconceivable, because they barely even knew of each others existance, and had far better things to do with their time, and plenty of impressive opponents much closer at hand.

I think it is a very un-realistic and un-answerable question.

Ruling all over china is impossible, period. Even the military genius Xiang Yu could only claim a hegemon over all of china, and give out fiefs. The Han also only united china by giving out fiefs. And it took nearly a century before central power is even established during Jin Di and Wudi. The Qin also only conquered the seven states through over a century of war. And Qin and Chu were far more powerful then whatever army Alexander is going to bring. Fopr one Alexander has no base of operation near Qin, Qin's territory of Guan Zhong is mountainous and only require a few army to guard the major passes and no army would get through. Traveling through the Taklamakan desert require huge logistics, we alerady got an example of Han Wu Di's invasion of Ferghana. to mobilize 60,000 troops. It require a huge portion of Han resources, and by the time it reached Ferghana, the army is only half as large. The Han is far more wealthier than Alexander's empire by at least 10 folds. Not to mention Alexander's tax system is quiet primitive to create money for such a campaign. and Ferghana is only a city with around a quarter of a million people, compared to Qin's 4 million. Taking the city on the desert one by one is the stupidest thing to do. Its logitically hopeless, and even if the city is taken, the poor cities of the estern region has little to provide to the army and we also have to consider their revolts.

Now Alexander also never displayed a strategic competence. Just look at the way he chose to fight Darius on the open field than a night assault as his genearl urged him to do. Tactics are meaningless in conquering Qin, which require logistics and strategy. Alexander doesn't know anything about the geography of China, been the careless and bold general that he is, the Qin could easily lure him into an unknown trap and annililate his army, the Qin has total strategic and terrain superiority, it could easily defend and attack, Alexander has no base and the operation would be decided by Qin, Qin could easily sent light cavalries to disrupt the supply line constantlyand having the total numerical superity Qin would have no problem wearing down any army.

Now is XiangYu aninferior generalthan Alexander? Nothing indicates that. strategically both aren't geniuses, yet tactically, there isn't any superiority on Alexander's part, the battle of Gu Lu and Pen Cheng dwarf those of Issus and Guagamela. Xiang Yu still couldn't win, because Han won through strategy and diplomacy, not brute force.

Speaking of alliance, we are going into diplomatic manuevre. A weapon sometimes more deadly than armies. Yet Do anyone actually think Alexander's army would have superior diplomats than Qin which were masters of diplomacy? Not to mention Alexander's army don't even speak the native language, and would never be as affluent as the Qin diplomat, Zhang Yi. So in diplomacy, alexander losses.


In fact I would dare say that even if there is no distance between Alexander's empire and Qin, the Qin still wins.
For one the population of Chu was 6 million, Alexander's empire has around 20 million inhabitants. With its large empire, 100,000 army, half of which are Persian conscripts hating Alexander, would not be able to guard the whole frontier. Alexander's empire might have a splendid outward view on the map, yet its internally weak. For one Its based on military conquest, the government is barely organized, the tax system and the conscript system is at its infancy. Only the Seleucids manage to create some stable government. Qin could use diplomacy and stir local rebellion in the different satraps some of which only submitted by force. Qin been highly centralized is much more immune to a counter diplomatic maneuvre.
On the other hand, Qin had arguably the most efficient government on earth. A largely centralized bureacracy based on merits.
Qin's standing army is roughly half a million. With at least 200,000 elite troops whose technologically superior to the Macedonians. Qin industry is standard and highly organized, nothing that Alexander's empire come close to. The superior agriculture and bureacracy(tax system) of Qin give Qin a food supply perhaps even superior to the whole of Alexander's empire. The Qin annual budget is arguably higher than the Macedonian empire since the Macedonian empire's tax system is barely developed under Alxander. Thats why when the Alexander dies, for a brief moment the most powerful of his general was the one that rule Macedonia and Greece, not the one that rule Persia and mesopotamia(seleucid).
When England faught France in the hundred years war, France lost in the begining horribly because its system of government was inferior to England's. Even though France had a population of some 15 million compared to only 3 million with England and a territory nearly three times as large. England's budget was higher than that of France, its centralized, and its army could be controlled. Now don't even speak of England and France, Didn't Macedonian just overran Persia, an empire much larger and wealthier than itself?
Speaking of generalship, I honestly don't see the superiority on Alexander's part, he is a brilliant tactician thats it. There are much more to war than tactics, Alexander never showed untactical brilliance. Since when have he ever attacked enemy supply lines? Or conducted surprise attacks? He act like a medieval feudal king and think war is for glory and its unglorious to attack the enemy when they have not prepared as was the case with Darius. I say generals such as Sun Bing is at least his level, and not to mention Alexander's other generals have shown very little competence, and Alexander alone can't win a war. The Qin general are based on merit, the amount of head taken on the battle field. Naturally the general were on average better than those of Macedonia's. Lets leave that out since alot of the genearl are Alexander's friends and this is not easy to separate.
Now the standing armies of Qin isn't even the deadliest part of its amzing structure, what Lord Shang Yang made Qin the greatest power in the central plain is the universal conscription system.
Not only was the Qin army establishment larger, and most likely more powerful, some 500,000 compared to Alexander's 100,000. But its military system also possessed one great advantage: it was based on universal obligation to serve, this organisational capacity was being rapidly developed through the extensive military use of roads and canals. Against the Zhao in Chang Ping, the Qin was able to conscript all male above the age of 15 within withing the empire, fielding an army over half a million large, excluding those withing the capital itself, truely, there might be some truth to SimaQian's description of an over million men Qin army.
Why lets just look at fairnly modern examples, the Prussian Army establishment was smaller than the French, totalling 201,000 in 1860. But its military system possessed gerat advantage of the universal obligation to serve, and in 1867 it proved itself capable of fielding 400,000 men, the majority reservists. This organisational capacity was being rapidly developed through the extensive military use of railways. Over 18 days in 1870, the Prussians proved themselves capable of mobilising 1,183,000 troops and transporting 462,000 of them to the French frontier.
The population of Alexander's empire is multinational and hardly loyal to him, Qin's subjects are largely the same people speaking the same language, loyal to the same king.
Naturally, both the standing army, the reserve, and the preparation, Qin was militarily and Dipomatically superior to MAcedonia. Macedonian empire might have a larger overall GDP through sheer population, yet without a centalized government and tax system, its meaningless. Not to mention the food supply of Qin is perhaps just as great.
Conclusion: A war would most likely ending with Qin overunning the eastern frontiers of Alexander's empire, causing bactria, Sogdiana, Pontus to ally with Qin or incorporated within itself(a combination is most likely) since the army of Alexander is much more concentrated on its Western Border and within Persia. Alexander would prepare an army, to confront Qin. If he wins a large battles Qin sue for peace and perhaps give some lands, its highly unlikely that it would be overran. If Alexander losses the a few decisive batle, Persia would be overan and he will escape back to the Balkans where he came from.

And yes, Qin would be a much gerater opponent than Persia, For one Qin could field armies just as large, but better in quality, two ,Qin's centralized government and conscription system allow it to sustain more than just a few defeats in battle even if it cost Qin an army of 100,000 on every occassion. Qin's whole army of 200,000 was destroyed against Chu once. Qin took it as nothing and mobilized another 600,000 and finally destroyed Chu. Of course Qin at that time was far more powerful, yet If Zhao could sustain 450,000 casualty, and the small kingdom of Han and Wei 240,000 and still take a bite back. Qin would give Alexander a much more difficulty. And also, Persia, been uncentralized and multiethnic already proved that it could be overran as long as a major defeat occur, since most of Persia's cities simply surrendered without a fight. Warring states cities might be small, but they are loyal and the defense are much more centralized and resistant. Zhao only have a territory less than the size of Korea when Qin destroyed it, yet Qin have to take its cities one by one to finally destroy it.
So in fact, if Qin was next to the declining Persian empire at that time, I would say Qin would have overran Persia even easier than Macedonia have if it took Persia by surprise.

macedon have 8000 cavarly armed with a long lance expert in wedge formation charges,does china have cavarly which charges in formation at this time or only horse crossbowmen?

Before Alexander would have attemptet to invade or attack any of the chinese states of the time, it would be prudent to look at what his STATET plans IE set into writing. Were fore the foreseeable future.

His plans for a homogenous NEW culture, as he knew that the split cluture empire he had raised did not favor it's survival, this is one of the reasons why he insistet on marrying of his officers to noble persian families. wether that would be succesful or not is hard to say, but probalby not.

His next target were already pointet out by him on the way back from the Indus, It was the Phonicians city states around the medditarrainia, Carthage first and foremost, that he would be able to take on and defeat the carthagenians at this junkture in time their can be no doubt, the only quistion would be how long it would take. but i would give the phonecians around 4-5 years before he would have broken and conquerd them.

Alexander was no dummy, he knew about tactical and strategic logistical problems as well as any duing the ancient world, it is by way worth noting that his armies sufferd ekstremly few casultaties to sickness and accidents compared to so many others all the way up to Napoleon and after.
Part of the reason were that he as a first organized a medical corps as an integral part of his armies and like the Romans later also made sure that things like latrins were pre-made before rest, and had scouts and mapmakers to tell him were fresh running water were in the vicinity.
They might not knew why keeping themself and their surroundings clean kept the sicknesses away but they KNEW that things like feces fks were poisonus to get in a wound, they knwe that running water did not carry sickness.
All in all for an army on the march they were both disiplined and healthy.

Why were Alexanders armies not bigger then?? becourse he never let his armies in the field grow bigger than what the surroundings could carry, any bigger and the result would be sickness and weakness of the individual soldier, which means that a big army by its very size would fairly quickly whittle down to a size much smaller than a army supportet by the surroundings.

Alexanders Armies were also well trained and rehearsed in the combined arms way of combat. any more soldiers would just be fill and get in the way if they were not probably trained.

He was well aware of his armys shortcomings, probalbly the most important lesson any general can have anywere, which is why it was an army constantly in development,

Besides the Persians and Phonicians (At Tyre) he also battle and beat Scythians both in the Caucasus (Sauromatiani) and their relatives and mountain tribes in afghanistan. he beat the Thracians and Celts as a young man in the balkans, and he meet and beat (Even throu it was a close run thing) Indians whit new weapons (Elephants first and foremost) in the Indus campaign.

He had a very good eye for good additions to his army and were never afraid of adapting new ideas if they worked.

Which brings us to his eventual conflikt whit Rome, after beating the Carthagenians he would almost by defoult get into conflikt whit Rome which at the time (Ca 320BC) were *just* a powerful city state. His conflikt whit them could very well mean that he would learn new things about the use of heavy infantry and organizations thereoff (As said he was no slouch in adopting what worked). at this time he would more than likely prevail over Rome.

If we give him 20 years to consolidatet his conquest around the medditernian and beating the celtic tribes that would be a steady threath to his European dominion. We would have a 54 year old ruler whit the largest empire in the world and a humongous taxbase, since it must be said that Warhead were only partly right in his describtion of the primitivness of the macedonian tax collecting, it was keep easy on purpose in conquerd territories, presisly to keep them from raising up in resistance.

The persians at the lower levels were mostly indifferent to Alexander since he was good at diplomacy and honoring their gods and lokal leaders, his army on the way back from the Indus actually grew in size since the strongholds and cities on the way were raising fresh troops for him while he was out campagning.

Macedonia had universal conscription just like Sparta and Thebes, so there is nothing new in that, neither the bureaucrasy that went into controlling said conscription, it was not enforced everywere partly becourse it was not needed at the time but also to keep troubles whit newly conquerd subjekts to a minimum (See Taxes).

have to leave for work but will return later if the post is acceptet and of use!!

"macedon have 8000 cavarly armed with a long lance expert in wedge formation charges,does china have cavarly which charges in formation at this time or only horse crossbowmen? "

Only light skirmishers, which include mounted crosbowmen, mounted archers, and soldiers armed with swords and short spears. Yet crossbowmen are enough to dispose of any heavy cavalry of the day in a head on confrontation unless the cavalry is used wisely in surprise maneuvres. Thats why why Han armies which did have shockers never used them as the primary offensive weapons, but rather use their mobility to outwit and wear down their opponents.



"Which brings us to his eventual conflikt whit Rome, after beating the Carthagenians he would almost by defoult get into conflikt whit Rome which at the time (Ca 320BC) were *just* a powerful city state. His conflikt whit them could very well mean that he would learn new things about the use of heavy infantry and organizations thereoff (As said he was no slouch in adopting what worked). at this time he would more than likely prevail over Rome.
"

IF he could conquer Rome, which was not "just" a powerful city state, but a kingdom which dominated most of Italy already.

Here is Livy'sBook 9 sections 17-19, and his arguments why Alexander would fail. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?lookup=Liv.+9.17

Book IX, Section 17 XVII.

Book IX, Section 18 XVIII.






Book IX,Section 19




Livy's estimation then, Alexander would be defeated by the Romans.

And his argument is quite suitable for Qin as well, since the situation is similar, only that the terrain would be much more difficult, and Qin's kingdom been much more wealthy, resourceful, organized, populous, and better equipped than contemporary Rome.



"If we give him 20 years to consolidatet his conquest around the medditernian and beating the celtic tribes that would be a steady threath to his European dominion. We would have a 54 year old ruler whit the largest empire in the world and a humongous taxbase, since it must be said that Warhead were only partly right in his describtion of the primitivness of the macedonian tax collecting, it was keep easy on purpose in conquerd territories, presisly to keep them from raising up in resistance."

Fantasy thinking might be fun, but when reality step in, its meaningless, why not assume Qin would conquer all 7 warring states in 20 years? Conquering the Bai Yue afterwards, then Chosun, Yunnan, Qiang, all of Southeast Asia and the He Xi and all of Xi Yu. Afterall, thats perhaps an easier task than what some Alexander worshippers think that Alexander could conquer Medditerraean and India in that time span (considering the Qin and Han actually acheived most of these generations later).







"Macedonia had universal conscription just like Sparta and Thebes, so there is nothing new in that, neither the bureaucrasy that went into controlling said conscription."

Its not universal conscription, but universal military service. Yes smaller city states could easily achieve this. Yet no empires and large kingdoms of the era could. Macedonia and Sparta, all of Greece under his control for that matter have a population less than half of the kingdom of Qin. To apply unversal conscription on such a scale requier an efficient centralized bureucracy which the Greeks did not have. None of the city states or a combination of them could conscript armies even close to a fraction of a million men. Rome could only do this at the end of the 2nd century B.C. when it boasted it could conscript a total army of 700,000 including all of its allies.(Roman italy's population at the time was 6 million). The kingdom of Wei could alerady reach that number in the 4th century b.c. a century before that during Alexander's time. Su Qin estimate the Wei has 200,000 elite force, 200,000 vanguards, 200,000 supply guards, 100,000 backup forces, with 600 war chariots, and 5,000 war stallions. And Wei at the time is a kingdom of medium strength with a population of roughly 3.5 million, the efficiency of the warring state conscription is already obvious, but Qin's 2 year universal conscription requirement makes it more militarized.


"it was not enforced everywere partly becourse it was not needed at the time but also to keep troubles whit newly conquerd subjekts to a minimum "

You don't need to explain why, all it really matters is that he can't, to keep troubles down is precesly a sign of weakness of his newly founded empire, which has not yet been fully consolidated and even if so, conscription over the many subjects still require a systematic developed household registration, something that Macedonia, or even the Roman empire at the very height of its power, could do in achieve. For example, Roman registration could only make a census of roughly 7 million citizens. The rest of the empire's population, which include slaves, women, and subjects are beyuond Roman ability to register, even this 7 million has much errors, since it does not seem to fit modern demographical studies which prove that Roman population along with it Rome's population itself is beyond the ability to sustain the figures that Roman census claims. Han on the other hand has a census that is highly accurate recording the population to be around 57.6 million which is well within the ability that demographic study gives it. The profound difference is already clear. This is due to the fact that without a centralized government with the ability to keep record of households, tax evasion as well military evasion is very easy and rampant.
This could be seen by the fact that Contemporary Persia, with a population some 5 times that of Qin, could field an army no larger, due to its less developed beareucratic registration abilities.

I loathe vs. threads and don't care for who beats who but there were no mounted crossbowmen at this time to my knowledge. They are alleged to come much later after the invention of a belt hook for loading while on a mount. In records of the Warring States the first battle where crossbows are even mentioned as a decisive factor is later than might be expected...around 320bc.
Not all crossbows of the period were the powerful leg loaded devices either, as some could be loaded by arm strength alone according to contemporary accounts, and yet there hasn't been any suggestion of mounted crossbowmen. Mounted archers were much more effective.
CJ Peers outlines one incident in Han records where half a dozen Xiongnu eagle hunters killed 30 Han cavalry (which tend to be proffesionals or volunteers) by circling at range and skillful archery.
Mounted archers are commonly depicted in tomb art or stone lintels from Han, and yet images of crossbowmen from the period are all shown on foot.
If there is evidence to the contrary I am glad to hear it.

Found an old post mentioning that Han had crossbows which shoot javelins , maybe they did indeed have field artillery. Also of crossbowmen riding, meaning their are horsearchers with crossbows by the Han(don't know anything about previous dynasties). The below is plagiarized from Yun.



Besides my point, the summary is pretty much that the Hxiong Nu have an upper hand in quality of men while Han had the upper in technology and numbers.

PS. However, you have to wonder since the cumbersome ballista against a nomadic horse riding army wouldn't probably be a good idea, since chances are the quicker enemy would never be in it's range.

Anyway, how quick does it take to reload a crossbow by hand only?

That is interesting, however Needhams translations have been bought into doubt, as I have said several times before.
I do believe the Han had some sort of arcu-ballista but await something concrete and the precise source of statistics on it is the puzzling part, i/e without a source for the ranges and such they are meaningless.
I am quite convinced that the Arcuballista of different sizes exist in ZHou.
As for mounted crossbowmen there have been specific comment that crossbows were not used from horseback untill a belt device was invented. Needham is often quoted but I have heard more said that casts doubt on both his inaccurate translations from period documents and the fact he is said to used information that archaeology has shown to be out of date according to another review of his work on ancient archery.
Again, I await something beyond Needham which in itself is not fully trustworthy, and even the author himself has admitted he got part of translations wrong as he doesnt read Chinese himself.
Stephen Selby said
On crossbow ranges & drawstrength we have Yang Hong pp 202-203, who is both recommended often by ethusiasts of ancient Chinese weapons and also provides clear sources for each of his points.
Of my assertion that the QIn crossbow was around 200m in range (based on the British musuem and publications from the Terracota warriors museum) I add this;
recorded on Han scripture slips at Juyan;

Note, by simple proportions and all things being equall the heaviest of all Han crossbows would be 364m in shooting range.
The quotes of the QIn at 200m still seem solid, as the Y. Hong also notes Han crossbows had heavier strength and shooting range the before, as well as sights for incresed accuracy. 260m for Han is typical.
I hope this finally puts the wierd figures we have been hearing in perspective.
The calculations I did on period document ranges in paces put the maximum flights from another source as 150'paces' to max of 600'paces' for best crossbows, this is a maximum in the range of the English longbow again....and NOT 800m or more as has been bounced about.
There is of yet no evidence for fantastic ranges beyond dodgy websites full of errors, and the drawstrength of Han devices can be calculated by what is given above.
Anything heavier than that will be a static device.
Yang Hong still calls the ancient crossbow and infantry weapon, even though he has sections on horse archery at this time.

Perhaps Yun could clarify the belt loading device for cavalry as it dates after the time period I am concerned with, and isn't of relevance to a QIn era debate.
It may be there were mounted crossbowmen sometime during Han, but when is unclear if so.
On ATARN it says;
Does this mean BY cavalry?

1) I just find it incredibly hard to believe that something drawn with two arms and held by two legs would be equal in range of something drawn with one arm and held with the other arm. Your calculations if you show me would probably convince me. Is it because the Han bolt is heavier? The reflex ability of each? Or something else?

2) You say(or your quote says) that there's 8 tensile strengths. But only 7 was listed. I'm guessing the other's nine? I don't know and am waiting for an answer. Can you also tell me the range of each tensile strength(actually the lowest range and highest range would do, but everyone of them if you have too much time/want to)?

1)They are NOT equal in range. There are 8 different strengths. Obviously the low strength ones are loaded by the arms.
Again the 2 types of loading are based on Han records, not geusswork.
As far as convincing people that it isnt important. Each to their own. I am not scoring points in a versus argument, but am giving completely relevant information to curb some earlier exaggeration of weapons performance which is unnessecary and incorrect.

2) I missed out 1 dan. You can do the math just like me, I only added 40% to the range of a 6 dan crossbow to get an 'all this being equal' range for a 10 dan crossbow.
As far as paces & range go that is under the siege weapons thread.
The basic point is that the websites and info given on the versus threads are often wrong.

wierd thing is that 1 Dan is said to be 50kgs by one conversion...but I will need to get more info.
The crossbow cavalry I will get back to you on as I will see what I can find.