Actually, according to the terra cotta army there's a lot more cavalry than there are chariots. However, chariots do take up a larger surface area in the army.

In regards to the archers, I knew of them, and I thought they were adept and could shoot arrows quicker and more accurate than Alexander's archers.

As for Chariots, it is a pain. But usually, there are 2 people. One is the Rider (kinda like a Squire); he takes the reins and listens to the soldier standing next to him, and he is directed by the warrior where to go. The warrior, obviously, hurls spears or fires his arrows or what-have-you.

Alexander's spears are way longer than Qin's. This much I do know. His Father, Phillip of Macedonia lengthened the spears and pikes to get better reach.

I think Qin may have used Bronze. I believe the time period of the Qin was after Bronze was "discovered" in China. So Qin armour probably may have been Bronze too. I think actual artifacts from the Qin period were "greenish" color - so probably bronze. As for Alexander, I think Bronze may have been used too for both armour and weaponry.... I could be wrong though.

Qin Will win no doubt!
2 million soldiers + Crossbow/Range specialty + Greatwall(Ranged attacks from within the wall) + abundance of food for war inside the great wall + tired & low morale of Alexander's soldier + Alexander's lost/death lover + Alexander's sickness + the distance from Macedonia for military support/assistance = Qin the Great?

kingswonder, Marky, squid.
Why can't people stay a little bit sober? Why are these threads dominated by bold conclusions clearly without looking at some evidence first?
Why not get some solid facts before believing there can even be solid conclusions?
It is plain to see you all know not a great deal about either the Qin or Alexanders forces, based on the uncertainty expressed even in what are given as statements about each.

Note GZ at the beginning gave the time for Alexanders arrival as -during- the Warring States period.
(Of course even had Alexander lived, he had by then turned his attention to building of fleets for expeditions West & even named the Carthaginians as next on his hit-list. While he did have a will to see the Eastern Ocean he seems at the time of his Eastern expeditions to want to subdue the powerful kingdoms in India rather than pass through the bleak Taklamahan for lands unknown)

How is the number '2 million' figured for the 4th century BC state of Qin army?
How can it be assumed crossbows would be as important as they were later periods since crossbows were invented and spread during the Warring States period via Chu state. Not all states were armed the same at this time.
For a period Chu state that was the strongest state of all the Warring States.
The Qin military in the era of the late 4th century BC was perhaps not remarkable over others in equipment, but it was their ethos and organisation that set them up for victory over even larger and better armed fuedal states. While some states were noted for excellent weapons or armour, it was Qin that was noted as having the appetite and will to swallow up all the other states as well as a well organised society to support them during wartime.
How much do we really know about the Qin military size and equipment at this time when the buried army is from 100 years later & earlier periods Qin was just one state of many?

About Qin helmets...people shouldn't believe everything they read on the internet.
There are helmets used in the Qin period since a pit containing stone plates for lamellar tomb helmets & armour have been found. Their worn armour at that time was hardened leather, the stone is for a grave object only. Around this time iron armour also existed. Qin armour was NOT bronze however, nor does it appear they used iron like some other states did.
Try reading a few threads on CHF before commenting. Lamellar helmets from the 5th century BC are known to exist so while not evryone wore them they were certainly around.
The Qin used cavalry aplenty too. A number of terracota figures can be seen to be cavalry as the horses have saddles and they hold the reins. The military importance of these only increased with time.
Cavalry were more important by this later period, as inside of 100 years the chariot totally vanishes from the battlefield.
Chinese chariots typically had 3 people, as did many ancient chariots such as the Hittites. A pole-armed warrior, driver and an archer.
etc.

I recommend reading the earlier threads on all these various topics on CHF before making comment (see Art of War, Ancient Arsenals, etc) , since there is a wealth of material from which you could learn.
I would hope people are here to learn instead of just pass time before mum cooks them dinner.
Try a google search of the forum, see the bottom of the page.


Edit; The thread does sit better outside the historical topic forums.
Perhaps then members should be indulged in forming strong but ill-informed opinions at leisure.

Topic Moved to "General Discussion" since drawing hypothetical conclusions using historic evidence is a "discussion" and not history.

Oh ok. On my part, I was debating my point (the way good old Historians would do). But I can see where this topic is leading to. At least nobody is insulting another member. I hope I didn't offend nor annoy anyone.

I am sorry for being rather too blunt. People can post in good humour and just for enjoyment of course.
Now this is out of a historical section of CHF I wash my hands of it.
My harsh comments are because I just saw too many nasty things said on the 'Rome versus Han 'thread over 60 pages, and this is on occasion linked to nationalism and so gets people quite passionate over nothing.
Before posting on hypotheticals on a Chinese History forum it is worth considering the context.
Those who say 'So & so would win easily' (in a post often only a few sentences long) chime in and then it becomes like arguing between soccer fans....over a game that never happened.
Hardly the kind of history I care to get into.
If it was informative instead of just opinionated it might have worth but it seldom gets better than discussions like, "If spiderman & batman joined forces could they beat superman?'

Superman win?

I expect so, but Batman has brains and may set up a trap using technology to contain him somehow.
Spiderman could just be the bait.

But will Batman have access to kryptonite?

The Qin army is more likely to be around 600,000. But note that this is not a permanent professional army, but a part time conscription based on farmers. According to Zhong Guo Fen Sheng Qu Li Shi Ren Kou Kao, Warring States could mass up larger amount of soldiers relatively to its population compared to later dynasties because its mode of production was still relatively primitive and the only major occupation were farmers and soldiers, hence states could amass up to 1/5 of their entire population for war.(Like the Manchus did in their conquest of China).
The Qin population was estimated to be around 4 million during the time of Alexander, the Chu having 6-7 million after conquering the Yue in 333 BC, the Qi also have 4 million people. These three were the most powerful kingdoms during that time. Hence although the Macedonian empire had a greater population(around 20 million), size, and resource, it has a less sophisticated bureaucracy and a much smaller military establishment.



Crossbows were already described as commonly used during the battle of Ma Lin in 341 BC when Sun Bin slaughtered Pan Juan's Wei forces with numerous crossbowmen. Even the Sun Zi Bin Fa mentions the use of crossbow as one of the weapons in the army.



According to Marvel Comics, Batman has a Kryptonite which he carries in case Superman turns rogue.

Alexander III invaded India, says Plutarch, with 100000 infantry and 15000 cavalry. This was in early 327 BC. What if he had struck across the Tanais (assuming his citizen soldiers agreed to this), pushed through the Tarim, and crossed the upper Ho to penetrate into the Wei River valley? Could he have defeated Chin and sized their core territory?
Han officer Li Giangli struck in the opposite direction in 104 and 102 BC, first with 6000 men and later, it is said, with 60000 men. During the second campaign he reached Ferghana, but only returned to China with 10000 men. The territory between China and Sogdiana must have been fairly barren and bringing an army across would have been a significant logistical challenge. Alexander might have mastered this challenge as he often did (see Engels ‘Alexander the Great and the Logistics of the Macedonian Army’). In 1219 Cinggis Qan marched from Mongolia to Transoxiana with about 60000 men in 3-4 months, but his army was mounted and the country in between was then more developed and at any rate already conquered by Chepe and Sube’etei. Alexander liked to take his time as he made his way forward, founding cities en route and subjecting the various tribes found along his line of advance. If he set out in early 327 BC he could have arrived along the upper Ho in 325 BC. That year Chu and Wei attacked Han and Chin was still at war with Wei. Chin also had nomad tribes to the north to consider and had not yet penetrated into Hanzhong and Sechuan. Faced with an attack from the west (the rear so to speak), they would hardly have been able to concentrate their full forces against this threat. With a fairly spread out population and without strongly fortified cities, it is possible the invaders could have made quick progress.
It is unlikely that Alexander had as much as 100000 infantry (maybe 70% of that), but he really had something like 15000 horsemen. The Greeks before the era of Epaminondas and Philippos II (c. 350 BC) made limited use of cavalry. This was also the situation, it seems, in China before Wuling of Chao adopted nomad dress and equipment for his horsemen (c.300 BC). The cavalry of Alexander would have been a surprise for the Chin. Alexander had lancers as well as light cavalry, a combination probably not even yet known to the nomads of Inner Asia. He also had a highly effective siege train.
The Warring State armies were reportedly very large, but the actual numbers are uncertain. In 341 BC Sun Bin made it appear his army shrunk from 100000 to 30000 men. The Warring States relied to a large extent on militia forces and an actual total is likely to have been well below effective totals (and more and more so once the campaign started). In addition, the total army totals reported included slaves and porters (see Chang Yi biography) as well as unarmed soldiers of uncertain value. If Sun Bin had an effective total of 100000, the effective total might have been 75000. Of these 1/3 could be porters and slaves, 1/3 unarmed militia and 1/3 the highly rated armored soldiers armed with spears, swords, and/or crossbows. It would leave him with 25000 men ready for serious combat. Faced by, say, 35000 Macedonian and Greek heavy armed foot, 10000 lightly armed ‘barbarian’ foot, and 5000 heavy cavalry and 5000 light cavalry Sun Bin would have been in trouble. In a defensive position with plenty of crossbows, the Macedonians could have found it difficult to attack frontally. Alexander III, however, could wage a war of attrition, making quick strikes against isolated targets with mobile forces or he might have found a way around an enemy position to attack from the rear. He also had a special ability to combine armies, including siege weapons (with his super-sized crossbows) and could strike frontally with great power. It is quite possible to see him win fairly easy victories.
Alexander might well have been able to conquer the Wei River region. Even so, conquering all of China was a completely different matter. Alexander died in 323 BC and his domain fragmented. By 301 BC Seleucus united a good part of it under his rule. If he then had struck across the Tanais into China he would have faced a different situation. By then the armies were probable even larger, more cities were better fortified, and cavalry was in use. Further, Chin territory was much bigger (having driven the Wei back and reached the Yangtze in the south). Seleucus could not field as large forces as Alexander. He could have fielded 30000 men (at Ipsus he had 32000). Confronted by, say, 40000 armored soldiers under the command of the formidable Bai Qi, he would have been in trouble.

You speak as if the Macedonian forces would actually possess a threat, it wouldn't. With no logistic base and a small army, if Alexander did invade, it would have probably been treated as just another border intrusion by the Yi Qu nomads. It might not even have appeared on the Shi Ji, or just one short sentences such as: "照王二年,义渠侵边,以三万之众击之,大败胡兵,斩首万余." "In the Second Year of Zhao Wang, Yi Qu raided the border, we sent 30,000 to attack it, crushed the Hu army, cutting the heads of over 10,000 men.

That would rather speak of the ignorance of ancient Chinese sources (and yours anyway), since actually tales on Alexander's exploits permeate the records of many, many Asian peoples having come in contact with his campaign (the famous Alexander legends). Even the Koran has something to say about Alexander who was by any standards a historical overachiever.

Way to completely miss the point. The analysis that was made was that if Alexander invades, his forces would possess no greater of a threat than the petty Yi Qu nomads that resides in the northwest of Qin, because his forces are no larger than theirs, and due to fatigue and the lack of a logistical base, would possess even less of a strategic threat than the Yi Qu to the Qin. It has nothing to do with what Chinese sources records about him. Why Chinese sources didn't record his existence is simple geographics, not rocket science. Chinese sources didn't mention Alexander simply because his army didn't reach anywhere near the borders of China. Hence we see no comments of him in Tibetan, Xin Jiang, Mongolian, Southeast Asian and Indian sources either(also due to the fact that india had no historical tradition). And even if he reached China, the logistic burden as well as the small military establishment of the Macedonian empire would make the Chinese treat his invasion just as another petty nomadic intrusion. Which was the whole point of my previous post.

Another point about the central plains international situation in 330 BC, there was an alliance between the other 6 states against Qin at this time. And Chu and Qi were the leading powers of that alliance.

Actually, India was quite well acquainted with Alexander, given that the latter conquered all the way to the Indus valley. There is even a legend that the first Indian emperor, Chandragupta Maurya, personally encountered Alexander when he was a boy.

I was careful to say "legend".

It is historical fact, though, that Alexander conquered in ancient India all the way up to the Jhelum river in the Punjab.

I've seen no ancient Indian texts(most of them been Buddhist records) mention Alexander the Great. Primary sources such as the Ashoka Stela also made no mention of him. The only references to Greeks were the successor states of Alexander.
Here is the passage: "Now it is conquest by Dhamma that Beloved-of-the-Gods considers to be the best conquest.[27] And it (conquest by Dhamma) has been won here, on the borders, even six hundred yojanas away, where the Greek king Antiochos rules, beyond there where the four kings named Ptolemy, Antigonos, Magas and Alexander rule, likewise in the south among the Cholas, the Pandyas, and as far as Tamraparni.[28] Here in the king's domain among the Greeks, the Kambojas, the Nabhakas, the Nabhapamkits, the Bhojas, the Pitinikas, the Andhras and the Palidas, everywhere people are following Beloved-of-the-Gods' instructions in Dhamma. "
Buddhist texts mentioned other Greek kings who established a foothold in India. But not Alexnader. The fact is, Alexander only conquered a petty state in Northwestern India. Note, the later Greek art which influenced India statues has no direct relationship with Alexander, it was the result of the conquest of the later Bactrian king Demetrius in the 2nd centruy BC.

As time moves forward, even Ashoka was forgotten, much less the less Alexander the Great, in Indian tradition.(again because India had no historical tradition) What the modern Indians know about ancient Indian history, or even kings such as Ashoka was due to 20th century reeducation.

From the writings of Plutarch, I think.

Much of northwest ancient India was ruled by the Seleucids and then the Indo-Greeks after the fall of the Mauryas; while they assimilated to some extent, they brought the impact of Alexander's invasion on India in the form of cultural tidbits like that; you can see that in the Buddhist statuary of the northwest.

Anyone get the impression that "Free Tibet" has some sort of animosity towards the Chinese?

If he did actually invade he wouldn't have been able to win. There are just too many factors against him.

1) He is out numbered greatly.

2) He lacks knowledge of the territory

3) His Phalanx formation doesn't work well in uneven terrain, which China is filled with.

4) Chinese warring states equipped their soldiers better and their solders are higher quality due to the experience from the feudal wars compared to the Persians.

5) Chinese Army is even bigger than the Persian army.

6) Chinese will be fighting on their own lands.

7) Even if assuming he somehow defeated a much bigger Chinese army in the field he lacks the neccessary siege weapons and numbers to besiege Chinese city walls effectively. The Torsion Catapults he used are not time effective in penetrating deep walls. He didn't have the logistics to support an extended siege like he did with his eariler campaigns even if assuming no relief army shows up. His siege engines would also become ineffective during wet seasons like spring or summer because the rope of the torsion catapults would become wet.

8) His phalanx formation is too rigid and weak against being out flanked, so the moment his calvary is routed or occupied his army can be surrounded and wiped out by an outnumbering enemy.

9) His phalanx formation is weak against crossbow fire, casualities in the formation will disrupt the formation as it advances.

10) He won against the Persians at Gaugamela because the terrain favored his formations and his calvary made a decisive charge against the rigid Persian Center at the right time and caused a mass rout because the Persian King retreated. Terrain wouldn't favor him in China, and the Chinese kings wouldn't take part in a battle, especially not in front and center. He would be facing a general.

11) The Chinese also employed effective anti-calvary infantry weaponry like the polearm, that combined with the lack of stirrups means that the effectiveness of Alexander's calvary's charge is lessened. Alexanders strategy in its basic terms is to hold the line with the Phalanx, screen with skirmishers, and deliver the routing blow with his Calvary.

12) His force at the time when he is closest to China is made up of a good portion of auxiliaries he picked up during his conquest as his core force decreased due to attrition. So the elite force he had in the beginning of the campaign is no longer with him.

13) Due to the extended campaign his men are very low on morale and it will only decrease if they find out they are facing well armed armies numbering hundreds of thousands.


It may be a different story if we just take a standard warring states Chinese Army and a standard Alexander army and put them in an open plain in a virtual made up environment and told them to fight. But there are just too many factors against Alexander winning if he actually did invade in real life.

A real good question would be who would win between Alien and Predator. I personally believe that we would lose, because a bad movie would result.

I was referring to the sequel they are planning to make. So the winning side hasn't been decided yet. And Cpt Kirk with Macguyver would definitely win over Borg and Replicator.

Im not fond of short replys, but.......here it goes. There are two very important articles that must be addressed on China's (Qin's or other kingdoms) advantage. First is the use of crossbows which I know has been discussed the whole time but its a key weapon here. The fact that a peasant could learn how to use it would make China able to get a large supply of men quickly, with bare minimum training. The key to success lies in the Chinese digging in for as days go by, an army weakens (for the most part) during the campaign. Alexander may win if he could be extremely diplomatic, controlling the states and growing in power. Another thing is barbarians coming in so while Alexander attacked, he would have to also deal with barbarians attacking his back. I see Alexander winning China if he played his cards perfectly (or really close to it!)

I think Alexander would have won battles, but there is no way he would have ever been able to maintain himself there. The Chinese are historically the most racist people on earth. They would have never tolerated being ruled by white barbarians and would have probably united to confront him. Even if he had conquered them on the battlefield, I'm not sure he would have had the incentive to stay. Again, having said that he probably would have mopped the floor with them on the battlefield. So I think that any expedition Alexander would have undertaken would probably be a massive raid. Could he have succeeded in plundering, pillaging and ravaging China and making off with a butt-load of loot? Certainly.

No people, historically, accepted foreign conquest lightheartedly... As for "the most racist people on earth", may I suggest that title would be highly contested... (with everybody assuming the other is the racist of course). It would be nice if you avoided such (ugly and unupported) blanket statements, lest your warning level goes up.

François

fcharton is the lenient type. I am not
jonbowman, your warning level has been raised 30% for flame baiting.

Examples? Comparisons with other people of history to show how they are MORE racist?



Tactics and reasons he would win on the battlefield? I stated in my post before his disadvantages in tactics and weaponry I'd like to see some reasons for how he would win in the field.



Not sure anyone in history would tolerate being ruled by others. I am not sure why they would need to unite to beat him but even assuming he is strong enough to force them to its the rule of balance of power at work rather than racism. Balance of power dictates that you ally with the weaker sides to fight the stronger in a feudal system where every state is after power for themselves. That's why no one side stayed strong(for long) in feudal Europe. Qin ShiHuang was an exception because by the time the states allied against him his state was already stronger than all the other states so at that point it didn't matter.



A few small cities and villages on the border would be all he could pillage due to logistics. It would be just another barbarian incursion in the eyes of the Chinese then. I'm not sure the loot he would be able to get would be worth the long trip and the loss of troops.

Things like the Boxer rebellion, confucian writings etc. Mostly, Chinese people that I run into in every day life. Ever dated a Chinese girl....ever notice how the parents feel about it. Everybody knows the Chinese are particularly Xenophobic and if I have to go through hundreds of examples in historical writings to show that, I'll throw up. SO I'm not going to. It's my opinion, but I think it's the truth.



Adaptability is one very good reason. Army size and troop quality is another.



Didn't say they did, but ruling over 15 kazillion Chinese who hate you makes it alot harder and requires more of your time. Time which Alexander didn't have.



Racism is very powerful



It doesn't "dictate" that.



You're not up on medieval Europe are you?



Logistics? He would have lived off the like he did everywhere else.....as for the second part, you may be right. I'm saying that's about all Alexander would be able to do.

In addition to your argument being weak(dating a chinese girl cited), your examples still don't prove how Chinese are MORE racist than every other race of people in history.
Let me emphasize my next point.

YOUR ORIGINAL POINT IS THAT THE CHINESE ARE THE MOST RACIST PEOPLE IN HISTORY.

Quite the generalizing statement.

In order to establish the Chinese are MORE racist compared with every other race of people you'll have to list every other race and their own racist ways and then prove that the Chinese are MORE racist. If you can't do this then your argument is flawed and need to be rephrased to be more specific.

You can argue that the Chinese are more racist than country "x" because of reasons #1, #2, #3 but to say they are the most RACIST in history is just plain foolish. There's no way you would ever substantiate such a sweeping statement and frankly your attempt was bad even for a mediocre attempt.(The use of Chinese girl's parents to somehow apply that to Ancient Chinese beliefs is particularly laughable.) All one needs to do to prove your sweeping statement wrong is to find just one example of where your statement is incorrect. I'll provide you with one for example and you can fill in the blanks: Nazi Germany. I personally find that the plan to systematically conquer and kill all other races(and almost successfully in the case of the Jews) you deem inferior is somehow slightly more racist than ancient China's alleged racism.




The greek battle tactics are not know for adaptability. (You can't reform a phalanx into any other formation than a phalanx for example. One of the main reasons Romans defeated them later in field combat. Another was the terrain. )




"kazillion" is not a word last I checked. Maybe you should go easy on the generalizations and misinformation. Alexander had lots of time, he was still quite young and had plans for invasions towards Europe. Obviously he didn't know he was going to die beforehand so in his mind he had lots of time.




Again, not a shred of proof on how "Racism is very powerful" can force feudal states who are at constant war with each other to suddenly fight against a barbarian incursion. (Which China had a lot of) Give me some examples of where countries united against a nation of a different race despite it being against their own interests in history please instead of mouthing off these ridiculously unsubstantiated sentiments.



Why doesn't it dictate that. Do you even know what the idea of balance of power is? Medieval to Renaissance eras were almost completely dictated by it. I am merely speaking the facts of medieval Europe. There were many countries that gained an upper hand throughout medieval European history, (Spain, England, Germany, and France for instance) but none of them held on to power for long because their weaker rivals worked together to undermine them. If that wasn't the case why do you think Europe isn't know as the "English Commonwealth" or "The Empire of France" or "United Kingdoms of Spain" or "Aryan Nation of Germany"?

There's no way Alexander can "live off the land" and preside over a siege of a city in China at the same time. Depite what your fantasies suggest one has to physically be there to have a siege and unless a good portion of his army goes off to forage he won't be able to "live off the land" and besiege a city at the same time. Do you think that when he does this the Chinese army stationed nearby will stand by and twittle their thumbs?

jonbowman, you will cease your comments on chinese racism both because it is irrelevent to this discussion and because you fail to provide evidence and source to it. Until you are able to provide primary sources as to how chinese are racists back in the Zhanguo era, it will constitute as being flamebaiting. More importantly, your personal experience has no weight here as you cannot testify for what ancient chinese were like.

And everyone will stop replying to those comments until he is able to provide sources

You might want to read my posts again. With no logistical base of operation, any systematic invasion, including raiding would be hazardous. Its unlikely that Alexander would have succeded even raiding the Qin unless he secure a base of operation in the Xi Yu region, which would have taken countless years.

You're arguing against a unsubstantiated and biased arguement. Jonbowman hasn't even explained why he thinks Alexander can "Mop the floor" with the Chinese army in the first place. I haven't seen a single post out of the 5 posts total made by Jonbowman that didn't contain sweeping generalizations that he can't backup or explain. I believe the admin has already stated we should stop responding to his remarks.

Lets talk about the details of how he would win(or lose) field battles(tactics and weaponry), what tactics(if any) he can deploy to keep his forces from being attritioned(he had limited numbers), and how he would conquer and maintain control over Chinese cities. (if possible)

Just for the record: The Alexander legends I was refering to are called 'Alexander romance' and their popularity in Europa and Asia makes quite clear that - to address the original point of contention - that any failure of ancient Chinese sources to mention a hypothetical Alexander invasion should rather be attributed to the limits of ancient Chinese historiography than an actual lack of importance of such an event:

No one stated that the events were unimportant.

You stated that ancient Chinese source would have been silent on a potential invasion.

It most likely would. That doesn't mean Alexander's conquests aren't important. It just mean he is too far away to be of any importance to Chinese historiography. Whats your point? Are you saying it wouldn't? If so give us your analysis. I've already shown mine, by bringing out the logistical, disease, and fortification problems.

Reading, if need be, re-reading helps.

I reread several times, I still don't see your point, if its about Chinese sources, need I remind you that you are making another troll post that has no relevance to this thread?

Interestingly, Arnold Toynbee has already given this "what-if" a shot back in 1969:

Arnold J. Toynbee, Some Problems in Greek History (London: Oxford University Press, 1969).

The relevant chapter is called "If Alexander the Great had Lived On," which has Alexander listening to his doctors in Babylon in 323 (and hence being able to live on) and later gathering a new army that included the elite Iranian youth he had been training to embark on further eastward conquests along the northern edges of the Taklamakan through to the southern Gobi.

If I recollect correctly (it's been a while), he emerged in NW China and started to made alliances with local princes and became a protagonist in the interstate rivalry of the time. He played one against another, mainly in an anti-Qin coalition, and even with a small army (Toynbee never contemplated the possibility that he could militarily conquer a unified China outright) began to assert his superiority. Eventually he "conquered" China.

Well, Toynbee was keen to get over this historically highly unlikely "hump" (of Alexander conquering China) just so that he could then posit a scenario of Alexander conquering the bulk of the Eurasian continent plus. By the way, acc. to Toynbee's imagined scenario, Alexander near descendants could actually go on to conquer Australasia and the modern world would still be ruled by one of his descendants in a unified world empire.

Interested? Anyone care to go read up on this work and report back what they think?

I've read Toynbee's works already. You shouldn't take his analysis as authentic. He is not a professional warring states historian nor a miltiary historian, his analysis of Chinese international policy is simplistic and unrealistic. He also took lightly the logistical problems and the diplomatic disadvantages of Alexander.


The He Xi region is simply not a suitable ground for settlement, Han Wu Di had to migrate tens of thousands of peasants over several years to finally settle the area. And the Han was right next to He Xi. Alexander’s empire is over a thousand miles away, with no bureaucracy. To relocate tens of thousands of peasants from his empire to Gansu is a logistical impossibility and an extremely difficult political undertaking as well, since it can easily incite massive rebellion. Only a large steppe empire has even a slight chance of conquering China from that far, and Alexander’s empire was no steppe empire.



This is simplistic and one sided. He made it appear as if its an unilateral Macedonian game. Power is a multilateral relationship; a psychological and perceptual phenomenon. States could only attain hegemon by proving that it has a powerful military and economy, coupled by diplomacy. Diplomacy requires information intelligence, which Alexander totally lacks in regard to China, since he didn't even know its existence. It would take years before he could even understand Chinese geography or find a suitable diplomat that speaks both a language in his empire and all 7 languages of the 7 warring states. The Qin, been closer to the other states, cutting Alexander off from the other states, speaking their language, knowing the cultures of the central plain, easily has the diplomatic advantage. Especially since this is the time that Zhang Yi, the great diplomat served in the Qin state. The Qin could lie about Macedonian power, downplay its armies, and there is nothing Alexander could do because the Qin blocked his route to the other states, and that the other states knows Qin better.

In order for Alexander to gain alliance with local princes, the only thing he could do is to physically prove that his state is more powerful than the Qin. This could only be accomplished by directly crushing the Qin army in several large battles or conquering some major Qin cities. The Jurchens only gained the Song's alliance when it already half destroyed the Liao, the Song allied with the Mongols in the same fashion. In another word, Alexander must prove he is a worthy ally by first overwhelm Qin with his own force before he could even hope of gaining the alliance of the other warring states. And thats not even taking into considerationg that the Qin could play the same traditional Chinese policy of "Yi Yi Zhi Yi"(using barbarians to control barbarians) and incite the Yi Qu to attack the Macedonians.

All of this of course, is ignoring the logistical improbability(and the lack of geographical intelligence).

Kindly note that nowhere did I even refer to Toynbee as a historian since I have scant regard for his methods etc. which are terribly out of date by modern standards. And of course he has no particular expertise in Chinese or Chinese miltary history. Nor did I claim that he offers anything that can remotely be called an analysis, authentic or not. Nor did I even endorse the piece as a historically critical work, itself an absurd notion given its inherently speculative nature.

Alexander's conquest of China for Toynbee was just part of a larger premise to discuss the next "what-if"s. These may be more appropriate for another thread with the title of "What if Alexander had conquered (as opposed to invaded) China.

I submit that these larger "what-if"s might actually be fun discussing since we are all just shooting the breeze here.... that is, if we can just (using what imagination we have) get over the historical implausibility of Alexander conquering China -- on the last issue I am entirely with you and just about everybody here.

I edited my post already, perhaps you didn't see it, but political science is alot more complex than Toynbee's speculations. Its simply an impossibility for an alien power to just enter into a foreign land and destroy the established political system by merely claiming its powerful. They need to prove it.
Just like how Britain had to defeat China in the opium war, twice, over an interval of twenty years, and capturing Bei Jing, for China(and its tributaries such as Vietnam) to actually understand British power, Alexander would need to crush Qin in the same way for the other warring states to understand Macedonian power. And I just don't see him capable of doing so.

We might know that Alexander's empire was powerful, but the warring state kingdoms do not. To these states, the Qin is one of the most powerful kingdoms in the world, and Alexander's kingdom is but an insignificant barbaric state in the western periphery of the empire. Why would they side with an unknown western state over what they perceives as one of the greatest power in the world: the Qin? Power is a matter of perception more than a physical quality. Alexander might be powerful in the Middle East, but China is at the end of his projectory; too far away. No one in China knows Alexander, hence no one will side with him unless he proves he is there to stay, like how the British did to the Qing.

Logan Anders, Tibet_libre, Jonbowman have been banned for Troll and flame-baiting.

The CHF staff team will not take any chance for those who violate forum rules and spoil the peace in CHF.

homosexuality will be legalized and we will have a lot of Greek hybrids.

You know, the statement about racist is rather lacking any evidence. What about the germans during Hitlers time, they hated many races, or the Egyptians to Jews, or the Europeans in the eyes of the arabians during the crusade. Different time periods call for different levels of racism. It greatly depends on the current situation and not the peoples general attitude of that country : )

may i suggest a small change in the formulation of the subject?? Actually speculating on such a war it's hard because we only have one sure background :the warring state.

For more fun, you should considere first trying to "invente" alexander's empire bordind china, what will be his capital, how will his army adapt to his new empire, how will be run this empire. Then when all agreed on this fictionnal empire, you can resume answering the initial question.

Have fun^^

There is no reason why Alexander the Great should invade China.. it's simply too far away. Even if he invaded, he would be beaten by all the warring states..

I like this kind of hypothesis: IMO, if Alexander had live up to 80 years old he would have invaded China, would he have succeeded? I would say yes because one of Alexander's greatest trait is his political diplomacy. His ability to convince States and tribes to join his cause. He has this personality aura that makes leaders want to follow him. And duirng that time China was a divided nation with different warring States fighting for control of China.

Alexander's army would have already by that time 10x larger and stronger than any of the warring States in China. It was Alexanader's short life that prevented such invasion and conquest from happening. Alexander would have gain alliance from some of the warring States and the remaining warring States that refused to submit would have been easily defeated.

Unless the warring States suddenly decided to unite as one China then probably Alexander chances of succeeding in conquering China would have been less likely.

I don't know why I ended up here, when I was searching for something totally un-related.

Anyway, this topic is quite interesting. IMHO:

1. Qin is a war machine.
2. It has a quality system to ensure mass production of weapons.
3. It has a well defined ranking system within its army.
4. Well logistic system for food supply during war time
5. Guaranteed food production because of many major dam and cannels

I am not good in History but I read a few articles about Alex.

1. He normally kill the king and then the entire empire collapsed.
2. He didn't directly fight head on with their main troope
3. Cannot fight in a long campain
4. small troop.

If he invade Qin, he will face the fact:
1. Even if the Great wall is not ready, he will face Great Wall around cities which he can't get in without a major fight.
2. Large army with well equiped weapons and limitless of supply.