1) Kenneth: "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."

2) So are you comparing the one with six dan(the one I was thinking of when you were comparing crossbow to longbow)? I thought six dan's were crossbows with the person standing on the crossbow and using both arms to pull it.



No need to critisize, didn't tell me of 40% difference between each dan before. And another question about the dan. Why is it 1,3,4,5,6,7,8, and 10 instead of 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 or in some recognizable patter?

I will get back to you on all this.
It appears I am getting sucked into a versus thread despite my disinterest.
The quotes are as given, and sourced. That shoudl be the end of it really.
The 6 dan crossbow is standard. If its range is 260, then add 40% to the range and get only a roughest idea of the 10 dan crossbow, with all things being equall, that the heaviest fire nearly 400m.
This incidently is in the effective ranges of the siege crossbows recorded in Song which I also put on the siege weapons thread referenced back to texts written in 1044ad.
The pace reference was the crossbows again, Warrign States period, 150 paces for some, and 600 for others and from Yang Hong text. I will give the primary source for you too, but I have a day job and will need to read the passage again.
I don't know what a 'pace' is but the modern pace (not the Roman pace) is about 0.75m, which gives a maximum....as I said on the siege weapon thread..of about 400m. Again this is about the same as a 90lb-110lb longbow firing maximum beyond effective range, but only a working estimite untill we get more info, as I said on the thread.
What a Chinese pace during the Warrign States period is needs more info too, but it seems that any range of 800-900m is getting wild and if so must be an unusual device or winch loaded.
The websites where figures like those come from should be entirely left out of debate if better figures are about.

I really dont want to have another endless circular argument about ranges just because anything under 800m won't do. I simply give period sources and what a pace or a dan is needs figuring. What I have said is all able to be cross-checked, unlike the websites.

Edit; I am not scoring points for the longbow or belittling the Chinese crossbow by bringing a little 'Whoa!' to the mystique of the uber-crossbow in the versus threads.
To ease confusion the 400m maximum range is a Longbow that was being fired by skilled men at an absolute maximum, with effective range at about 200m. I may have to find the quotes and source them again, but that was the consitent figures from reliable experiments in Britian.
A Han crossbow firing 260m then is perhaps better than the longbow...and a 10 Dan crossbow better still. That some crossbows of heaviest types would have exceeded Longbows, seems pretty clear.
Once again the confusion exists over effective ranges and maximums, and the 260m ranges for Han is probably and effective range 'they could shoot'.
I simply use the Longbow figures as a high drawstrength and hard hitting comparison for examples since we have no ancient crossbows to get modern figures from.

Ok, first of all, I'm not even thinking of "versus" right now or anytime during this page.

Second, the range I am pretty clear about(no need for info), but the main question was on whether if the one with 6 dan was drawn with the person standing on the crossbow or with the person drawing the string without standing on it(plz answer me on this). It just seems hard to believe(for both sides, again not a versus). If you are talking of crossbows with the person standing on it, then I can't see how it's max would be the same with the longbow(reason mentioned earlier). If you are talking about crossbows without the person standing on it, then I can't see how the longbow's max would be the same as that of a crossbow. The way to draw a bow seems the best way to store the max amt of energy within an arrow. However, to draw a crossbow without standing on it(or using your legs in any way) doesn't seem to give even close to the amt of energy it takes to pull the longbow(To tell you the truth, I've only seen a picture of Selby drawing the crossbow, if he's drawing it wrong, plz tell me).

Again, I never implied about anything of favoring anybody on this page. If that's true I wouldn't be asking questions, I would be refuting you with sentences ending in periods, not question marks. Just for future reference.

Is there even anyone to defend China on a Totalwar forum?

ok, this should help.
I will also later put all of these passages on the ancient arsenal thread about 'Han crossbows' so it can be off use for people interested in the ability of such weapons.

After this I will end my involvement on this thread hopefully, although I have asked Yun if he can point me in the direction of info on 'crossbow cavalry' and at what period they make an appearance, rather later than Qin I suspect.

Yang Hong notes crossbows of the Warring States include arm pulled types.
Sun BIns 'Art of War' records arm-pulled crossbows 'that shoot 100 paces', but at this time there were also leg loaded crossbows.
Sima Qin records that Su QIn during his tour saw in Han state the 'strong bows and powerful crossbows used throughout the land are produced by Han...the range of the powerful weapon is over 600 paces. The Han soldiers pulled the their crossbows with the foot and shot 100 arrows....without let up'

Now, without giving a final answer now I suggest we firstly abandon any websites and find out what the 'pace' is, and then what the Han era 'Dan' is becuase that will be the final truth.
I dont think a pace is likely 1.5m as the roman pace as that puts the weakest ones at 225m, and the 'strong' ones at 900m. Remember the avergae 6 dan crossbow fires 260m. The simple single 'pace' in modern terms is about 0.75m which is a more reasonable 100m to 400m range for East Zhou weapons.
This is only my working premise untill further info, as I said when I first posted this under 'siege weapons', and may explain a Roman pace mistake creating these 900m Qin crossbows on websites. I simply look at all the reasonable sources and forget the rest. I will stick with the British museum and others and put QIn at 200m.
I doubt the Han 'Dan' is 50kilos, as one conversion source said...as that puts the average Han (leg drawn?) crossbow at 300kg to draw & fire 100 volleys without let up (750lb!) and the 10 dan bow at 500kg, and the mimimum crossbow at 50kg (i.e the lowest 1 dan crossbow at an impressive 124lb).

Note; the inference form this is the weak ones are hand drawn but by Han the 6 dan or average crossbow is leg drawn.

Note; the Han 6 Dan crossbow fires a range of 260m. This implies a slightly heavier weight than a longbow...but not by a factor of 7 (i.e 750lb)

However untill the ancient 'dan' & 'pace' is defined I remain open to the final figures and excercise caution on others. I do however accept the sources are accurate & as given but can't make use of them yet.
Anybody who can, even if it does prove the Han crossbows were 300kgs or whatever, will be doing the forum a favour.

Thx for the info. Now I know the 6 dan is leg drawn, and that dan is a type of weight measurement, and thus the irregular 1,3,4,5,6,7,8,10, which ends my confusion.

Please give link to the thread

I think the only chance of alexanders army would be a massed charge routing the light cavalry of china and hope that his cavalry can chain rout the chinese before getting there numbers cut down from superior archery,Did china have massed horsemen who could charge?

I am somewhat shellshocked that was rather fun in a way to read so much nonsens in so short a time, some those posting i'm afraid have got their whole historical education from computer games. Sad in a way, but also hilarious at times
Will return whit some more relevant information at a little later date have to prepared for my sons birthday now.
Take care evrybody until then.

"but there were no mounted crossbowmen at this time to my knowledge. "


No it existed since mounted cavalry came into use in the warring states.


"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. "

That would be 341 B.C. in the battle of Ma ling. Yet its the only battle where the use of weapons are actually somewhat detailly mentioned, it doesn't mean that crossbow weren't in great use prior to that.



"and yet there hasn't been any suggestion of mounted crossbowmen.
Mounted archers were much more effective."


Ther HAS been conclusive evidence. Qin terracota tomb warriors only carried crossbow bolts on the archers, meaning that the majority of these mounted archers were in fact crowwbow men wielding a lighter form of crossbow that has a range of around 200 yards.


"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."

Either he misread the story or you misranslated it. This is the story of Li Guan. Jing Di sent a official to examine border defenses. That offical brought a few ten han cavalry to chase after 3 xiongnu archer. None of them are properly trained or led(None of these Han men are close to professionals)
the 3 xiongnu archer hit the official who got hurt and ran the other soldiers lost heart and ran with him. The 3 xiongnu ran at them and taking them out with their arrows, until Li guan came with 100 soldiers. The xiongnu ran, yet Li Guan took 2 out with his arrows and captured the 3rd. When he found out that they are hunters, there was immedieately a thousand xiongnu mounted archers that came to the border, Li Guan played trick and led his 100 men close to the xiongnu, the xiongnu thought this was a scouting force and if they attack they would enter a trap and thus left.

These 3 xiongnu are on foot, so there is no way that they could of surrounded the Han troops.

You are taking about Li Guang right ? As in the Flying General ?

Hey I read his story before in shangxiawuqiannian... Said he fell into a trap when chasing 3 Hxiong nu prisoners. It was as warhead stated(although it didn't mention the prisoners fighting back) and how Li Guang fell into a trap. In responce he made his forces take off their armour and rest, while he went up with horse and arrow and shot the Hsiong Nu leader, and then rode back. The xiong nu army thought this must be an ambush and retreated.

There's also a story of how he mistakenly took a boulder to be a tiger. He shot the tiger(or boulder) with his bow and the arrow went INTO the boulder. After he figured out that it was a rock, not a tiger, he tried shooting at it again. Each arrow only bounced off the rock. Is this true or only a story? Obviously the moral of the story is that fear can make you stronger.

Do you think I should introduce them to this thread? Or do you think it'll just make this thread constantly repeat itself? Should I risk it?

Actually, it was two different story. One of them was about him capturing the Xiongnu expert archer. That was the 3 prisoner one. That one actually ended with a classic clash of the titans with the expert vs li guang in which li guang won.

The other was when he was out with a hundred men or so for a scouting mission and bumped into a massive Xiongnu army. He knew that if he ran, they would simply chase him down and slaughter them. So he made it as though he wasn't leaving so the xoingnu though they were nothing but bait to lure them into a trap. When the Han soldiers were showing signs of fear (can't blame them if you ask me) which could give away their ruse, Li Guang ordered his son Li Gan to ride up and take out the Xiongnu commander, which he did. Afterwards, he made it certain that he wasn't leaving by dismounting and taking the saddles off the horses. the Xiongnu bought it and was hesitant of attacking. At dawn, the Xiongnu retreated.

Is their some truth in perhpas saying that alexanders conquest of persia was made easier by darius taking the field and than fleeing. An empire left without its ruler would than be an easier conquest without that commander to unify their efforts.

If the above has any truth than the conquest of china will be made more difficult by simple virtue of it having more kingdom to conquer

Sure, I am trying to be helpful, but I more often than not end up being a pedantic pain also.
Your post about the spear firing crossbows is worth bearing in mind, since the bolts could be 1.8-2.2m long on arcuballista but whether the Needham account is quite right is something I will always wonder.

Re; Dan & Pace.
S. Selby, told me this much earlier in a similar such discussion;
well, not a lot.
(actually I e-mailed Stephen asking what he considers the figures in Yang Hong's book to convert to. My current geuss in a hectolitre of grain/dan may be around 40-60lb max. I will post an answer when/if I get them. )

PS; got this from Yun;


There does remain the possiblity of smaller arm drawn Han crossbows from horseback, or firing but not loading heavier crossbows (as they are a large 1m-ish arc on museum reconstructions and unlike small cavalry bows).
The Wudi incident seems more clear than Needhams text as proof for crossbows being used from horseback in some form....if not commonly depicted in art from the period in the way archery is, nor very efficient untill belt loading was devised.

I learnt something new today!.

PS; Warhead, the date of 'around 320bc' was from the top of my head. If I check you will be correct at 341bc no doubt & it does still mean the earliest reference to the crossbow as a signifignat factor in war records is this time. Of course it existed earlier, but hadn't superceded the bow and the bow always existed alongside since the crossbow has difficiencies too.
The QIn cavalry to my knowledge had'nt had crossbows associated with them. The arrowhead from of QIn was a late East Zhou type and was a universal form, and is commonly shown as a standard type. One text of mine does show a West ZHou stlye arrow head found in the pits...which is odd since they were already rarely found by the end of the Spring & Autumn period.
One author calls the East Zhou stlye 'pyramidical', where-as I call it 'triangular cross-sectioned'. I show a couple of examples on the 'Han crossbow thread'. The only types of Qin arrow heads that tend to be shown are the late East Zhou style so such a find is odd.....still by stanning my texts the only time so far it refers ro cavalry weapons it calls them 'bows'.
It would require a mechanism or such found with the cavalry to prove the Qin crossbow was a caalry weapon also, if you have such info (since the arrow heads type are alone is not) then please let me know. It would be entirely conclusive and good to know the truth ....but not the geocities website quote pls!
The 200m is for a standard Qin leg loaded device since the improved (weight & ranged sights) Han crossbow was a comparible 260m for the common type, and this is depicted as leg loaded.
It appears the idea it is a arm loaded/cavalry type would only be becuase the range doesnt agree with websites, but it does agree with literature...200m is the range given by texts in association with the Qin museum, and there is commentry on the standardisation of Qin devices...and NO suggestion of different heavy/light mechanisms found (which seem to be all for infantry). If you have evidence for a smaller mechanism (like in the Wudi account) or any physical evidence of a crossbow associated with the cavalry that would be some real evidence that would be plain & true enough.

That crossbows could be used from horseback, at least in Han, is now pretty apparent (based on Yun's info). It is not however represented in horseback archery on period art or tomb lintels for some reason. Again it may be due to limitations.
It would not likely be a 'powerful..600 pace' leg loaded crossbow, as it couldnt be reloaded from the mount...but an arm drawn one could be loaded and carried by cavalry and require less skill. Its advantages from horseback would be limited however (slow reload), and the size of a bow arch carried on horseback tends to be smaller. I am satisfied it could be done, but it would not be the powerful 100 volley firing effect of the infantry formation Sima Qian records . It appears mounted bowmen were more sought after and depicted on the tombs of nobility or in fighting scenes /hunting scenes.
Still, it is good to be given extra considerations. Thanks!
I will edit all these extra points I am being made aware of into future posts on crossbows, as well as what statistics I can get.
In the end it just makes for better conclusions on the Chinese crossbow as a real weapon.

PPS; Forumers, dont bring any nutters from other forums versus threads here! Leave the trash in the rubbish bin where it belongs.

EDIT; as an afterthought;
the 'West Zhou' style arrow head attributed to QIn also has in the same photo a full cast iron crossbow bolt, a bronze headed and iron tanged crossbowbolt, and in another figure a very unusual style broad & flat arrowhead said to be from these pits too. I now wonder if a mistake has been made in the labeling them all as 'Pit of terracota warriors' as the uniformity of those bronze points has been commented on and the photo itself seems to include several types, and none of them otherwise fit within one period (i.e iron tanged to fully iron points should be Han or later, while the swallow tail should be mid-East ZHou or earlier).
I will be cautious without further info or another confirmation about assuming such point are actually associated with QIn era-weapons.

According to this online table: http://www.cctv.com/history/20040722/102383.shtml

A dan 石 was
30 kg in the Warring States
30.36kg in the Qin
26.4kg in the Han, Three Kingdoms and Age of Fragmentation

In the Sui, there were two standards - the big dan (79.32kg) and the small dan (26.4kg)

The Tang adopted the big dan (79.32kg) as the standard dan.

The Yuan dan was 75.96kg, and
The Ming and Qing dan was 70.8kg

So in this case 58.1 lbs.

When you say the longbow's range is 200m, it's 200 yards, which is 180m.

Found some research on its armor penetration abilities.

http://www.channel4.com/history/microsites...s/longbow1.html

Says that it can dent steel breastplates at 80m, puncture it at 30m, and fully through it at 20 m. Of course, at 20m archers would probably spend more time running than shooting. At least I would. At 80 m you might give the knight a good bruise from the force or at best some internal damage.

Also says that a longbow is a little more than twice as fast as the crossbow. During a thirty second trial the longbow loosed 9 arrows while the crossbow loosed 4 bolts. Didn't mention what type of crossbow though.

Btw, why would people use crossbow on a horse? The recurve bow have 350 yds(yes, it's probably curved 45 degrees, but divide that by 2<which is the difference between effective and max range of longbow> makes it 175 yards). 175 yrds isn't a drastic difference between 200yrds. When measured 200m away it's hard to detect the difference. And then the bow's much, much faster.
PS. Horse crossbowmen looks cooler but I would rather stay healthy/alive rather than look cool any day.
The information of the recurve bow is found in the book The Devil's Horsemen

Its very hard to shoot a bow whilst on horseback perhaps the chinese used crossbows on horse because it was alot easier to shoot accurately

More likely becourse they used Crossbowarmed cavalry as mobile strongpoints and artillery more than cavalry in the usual sence, in essence a very mobile version of their infantry rather than as shock or hit and run cavalry.

Alexander's post seems likely

So a sort of dragoon then?

Anthrophobia & Yun, thats good to know and finally a reasonable figure.
Once confirmed, although I would believe this to be correct, I will post it under 'ancient arsenal'.
It puts a 1 dan crossbow at a reasonable weight that is still arm drawn, and a 6 dan at a impressive weight a soldier drilled and in good condition could still load with the legs repeatedly. The 10 dan then may well be the type that 'required special strong men' as was alleged, as it gets in the realm of a power lifters weight.
Must hurt to be on the pointy end of such a weapon.

It may interest you that when General Ma Long recruited elite soldiers to suppress a Xianbei rebellion in 279AD, he set the requirement that they had to be able to draw a 9 dan crossbow with the 'waist-arming method' -- i.e. with the belt hook at the waist. He also stipulated the ability to draw a 1 dan bow. 3,500 men were selected, and with them he defeated a Xianbei army several tens of thousands strong. However, the belt hook seems not to have been passed down through the Age of Fragmentation, and had to be re-developed in the Song.

"The QIn cavalry to my knowledge had'nt had crossbows associated with them. The arrowhead from of QIn was a late East Zhou type and was a universal form, and is commonly shown as a standard type. One text of mine does show a West ZHou stlye arrow head found in the pits...which is odd since they were already rarely found by the end of the Spring & Autumn period."

The Qing cavalry not only had crossbows, but from the terracota finds, its probably crossbow based. I have a recorded program named "Tie Xue Jun Tuang" which especially talks about the Qin army and its mounted crossbowmen. The advantage of the crossbow of the time is its accuracy in a primitive form of a target chart, the loading would be done on foot on the horse. The problem would be its reloading speed. The strength is its accuracy and penetration power as well as endurance.

Did han cavalry during the invasion of Xioungnu use compostie bow or crossbows or both?if they did perhaps the qin used both too

Here is a map of 323 BC, at the height of Alexander's power.
Indeed, from an outsider's point of view, it is pretty hard to believe that an empire as large that that would likely to have lost to one of the small kingdoms of the Chinese warring states

But the Huaxia kingdoms would probably unite with each other when facing a bigger outside threat. Furthermore, we are assuming the war will be fought in China or near China right? Then the Chinese would have a logistical advantage.

The Alexander's empire never had the mean to survive beyond his ability to conquer and reconquer. No adequate bureaucracy was ever set up to manage it.

I somehow doubt this. Politics is politics and wars is war. Those states would probably be trying to position themselves best to use "Alexander's invasions" to weaken one another.

BTW, great maps there Wujiang.

During the Spring and Autumn Period the first of the Five Hegemons, Duke Huan of Qi, created the slogan "uphold the Zhou king and suppress the barbarians" and led an allied army of the various Huaxia states.

I think there is more unity between the various Huaxia states than you think. They may fight amongst themselves, but when they see a completely alien army invading China, they will unite to fight the common enemies, like how the various Greek city-states allied themselves against the threat of the Persian Empire.

Nominally all of the Huaxia states were a part of the Zhou Dynasty.

This high-minded nationalism sounds good when removed from historical reality. Good stuff for propaganda nevertheless.

The idea that these Greek Citi States fought for anything other than their own individual interest is laughable, as proved by once the threat of encroaching Persian subsided.

An idea that contradicts your own of a disunited China is automatically considered "high-minded nationalism" and "propaganda"?

Interesting to know I have the idea of disuniting China. Do you have anything to back this allegation up?

it seems to me that to create Alexander's empire is comparable to conquering China in later times. So Alexander is not unique. Thereby imo removing mystic godly status. Rome could not conquer Parthia, and Parthia is smaller

Its also hard to imagine how Persian empire would have lost to Macedonia, or how the French kingdom of 16 million men 220,000 sq miles and superior agricultural products would have initially lost to England in the hundred years war, with only 3.5 million people and around 70,000 sq miles.

What if Zheng He was a militant colonizer and destroyed the Venetian fleet?

Actually the Greeks arent bigger than the Chinese... most europeans cant fit into their ancestor full plate..lol

Oh yes, if Qin was attacked by an invading force, protocol and rites will require the other states to aid Qin. It is considered unrighteous not to help a fellow nobility. Qin can also force the other states to help by requesting for the Zhou king to issue a decree.

And dont forget, the differ states have differ princes in the Qin courts as hostages too.

There is no need for other states to get involved, Alexander's invasion would be strategically impossible. The odd of him reaching China would already be a phenomenal feat itself. And had such feat indeed be accomplished, it would have amounted to no more than a typical barbaric intrusion of the west in the eyes of the warring states.

Which of course had already happened a few times. Even the culturally advanced and militarily powerful Zhongshan was crushed and subjugated despite having warriors that was supposedly clad in full iron scale.

Alexander would be no match, Rome would be a bigger challenge than alexander

Hmmm... I think it would be possible for Alexander The Great to conquer China. Reasons? Well, I have listed a few below.

Alexander's father, Philip of Macedonia, employed the Hoplite Phalanx Fighting Technique. If you don't know what Hoplite Phalanx is, google it or just remember how the Orcs were lined up in Lord of the Rings 2 (when the Orcs cornered the people seeking refuge in the Stone Fort). If you consider just infantry vs. infantry, Alexander's Hoplite Phalanx would probably win, as Chinese foot soldiers seem to attack/harass with sword in hand whereas Alexander's Phalanx would have a longer reach with their long "spears" and would press forward with spears sticking in the direction of the opponents.

Second reason why would be the calvary mentioned. If Chinese infantry become distracted by the phalanx, then Alexander's lightning quick calvary can topple the most well-equipped army.

Third reason, the idea of just attacking one ally at a time was perfect. Philip employed this technique when he fought against the Spartans and Athenians. I am sure Alexander knew about eliminating a one opponent at a time. Anyway, depending on which territory of China he would enter, Alexander could easily subdue China one territory at a time. The only way I could see the Chinese defending Alexander altogther would be to surround him and his invaders right as he steps foot anywhere in China. But that would mean the Chinese would have good knowledge of Alexander and his military, but I don't think the Chinese would have any knowledge of him since they really never contacted each other. So far, it seems like Alexander would win.

A few reasons why Alexander couldn't conquer China would probably be Chinese Archers. I believe the Chinese Archers to be better than Greek ones. Moreover, Alexander's army began losing morale and grew tired from fighting. So when that happens (especially facing a very well equipped and LARGE opponent like the Chinese), then, you could lose troops because they aren't fighting hard enough.

If it was infantry vs. Chinese ARchers, the Archers would probably win with some assistance from regular foot soldiers. But those regular foot soldiers would need to protect the Archers from the quickiness of the Calvary.


***Oh, I forgot, I don't know too much about Chinese calvary at that time. Anybody want to fill me in? How would the Chinese Calvary hold up against Alexander's. Alexander had neat chariots on which some guy can shoot arrows or throw spears (at least I think he had chariots... I could be wrong though....).

No he wouldn't, its a logistical impossibility. As I've stated in other threads,
If Alexander wants to invade China with even 50,000 soldier requires around 250,000 pounds of grain and 900,000 pounds of water for a single day, the distance between Sogdiana and Shan Xi is over 1,500 miles, according to Engel's logistics of Alexander's army, the marching distance for his troop is 13 miles a day.(with only mule and horse carts) It would take about 4 month to just get to China. That would require a total of over 130,000,000 pounds of supply to just cover that distance and 260,000,000 pounds back and forth. This requires something like 870,000 horse and mules or 350,000 Oxens in a year and a half. And this is not even including the time it would take the Macedonians to conquer Qin, if their army isn't routed on the battle field already. The entire Persian Empire have no more than 50,000 horses. The Macedonian Empire also lack a centralized bureaucracy, a campaign that lasts over two years in a foreign land 1,000 miles away would cause heavoc. The only thing that the Qin has to do is close its city gates and forth the Macedonians to retreat after they ran out of supplies or fall victim to disease. Then they counter attack and rout their forces.

not to mention the soldiers' morale which wasn't really great during Alexander's advance to India. Soldiers have limits to what they want to die for as well. And dying for an emperor's hybris obviously wasn't something they wanted to.
Someone in this thread also mentioned that the Imperium of Alexander didn't last long due to the lack of a bureaucratic system. He basically failed to consolidate his conquests. I think that his early death caused this. In my opinion, he knew how to pacify a region. However, this lack of administration (at that time just after finishing his conquests) also indicates, how inadequate his empire would have been for further large scale wars and conquests against india or china during his lifetime(or better: his last years).
If it wasn't for his death, the empire would have ben consolidated.

Nevertheless I don't consider the military force of the Qin as inferior to the macedonian army. The opposite is the case in my opinion. You might want to read into the main disadvantage of the phalanx formation and what the chinese already fielded in broad scale (the crossbow).

I thought the question "What if Alexander the Great invaded China" meant just army vs army or military vs military with proper food supplies on both sides, you know, one of those hypothetical situations like "who would win a basketball game - the Chicago Bulls from the 90s or the Present Day San Antonio Spurs"? Kinda like that.

But anyway, if Alexander needed those supplies, he probably could have taken them from subjugated lands.

No he couldn't. As I've already pointed out, the entire Persian empire(which was as large as the Macedonian Empire) lack the resources to conduct such a campaign. The various states of the Tarim would have to be taken one by one if Alexander wish to gain any supply from them, and that would take years and even more losgistics from his empire.

Why make conclusions on a whimsical hypothetical if you don't even have the very basics?
I find hypotheticals lame enough as it is.

The 'neat' chariots of Alexander are news to me. I have never heard of it as part of the Macedonian order of battle. They faced Persian chariots and best them. A chariot is not something the Chinese would be unfamiliar with.
The Chinese had chariots, but chariots have a number of potential disadvantages.
For this reason horse archers became increasingly important during the Warring States period. The ability to shoot on the move, one man & one horse, meant lumbering chariots were an expensive option.

I wouldn't belittle either side in a hypothetical by deciding who is going to win a battle that never happened.
The rather pointless hypothetical aside I should comment that Alexander had more fore-sight as an administrator than his early death might allow. He was very lenient on conquered peoples. He cut taxes as he advanced and did not burden the population, or slaughter people just for resisting (although persistent rebellion would incur wrath). He had many of his generals take 'Asian' (in the Greek sense) brides to cement a vision of a mixed empire and to build alliances and contacts.
The later Hellenistic influences on places like India, and even into the Silk road, show that a few short years had a great effect.
Even his generals could not see the logic of such culture & race mixing and leniency, but to me I think he shows himself astute about human nature on a bigger scale. He adopted Persian ways, and accepted them as officers in his army. He may well have been an excellent person to oversea a meeting of ancient cultures.
The Qin after all were good at conquering and administration, but it was precisely a lack of leniency which bought about a fall to such a mighty & strong system. The Han were wiser and the Emperors like Wendi knew that people need to be rested and to recover after a war.
Alexanders pressing of his men so far from home means he had the urge to keep going, but with conquerered peoples at least he had a good strategy IMO.
Whatever killed him makes it all a moot point though. The men that followed him were not of the same calibre, and his gains were fragmented.

We can compare and contrast Han and Macedonian equipments (to see how they were different from each other), we can point out major difference between Macedonian and Han army. However, there will be no definite conclusion at all, never, and never

Whether it is hurt or not, there is only one truth.

Such a sort of comparison just like warhead compared the Mongol Empire with the British Empire in a poll recently.

According to the Terra-cotta Warriors and Horses of Qin, there's no helmet in Qin's army.
There's also no real cavalry in the army.
Qin's archor's shot range is shorter than Alexander's.
and of course Qin's spears is much shorter than Alexander's.
Alexander's army experenced nearly all styles of battle and all types of army on the world.
But Qin's not.

So in spite of other facts such as supply and weather, if the two armies meet, it's very difficult for Qin
to win.
So I think Alexander will win, but this doesn't mean he can conquer China.
(He won the battles to India even defeat Battle Elephants, but conquering a country is not only depended on
forces.)

There were no regular cavalry at that time. Because the stirrup have not been invented at that time yet , the cavalry's power was limited, so chariot is more popular.
As Histories record, Qin's ancestors were charging horses, but there's no much cavalries in the Terra-cotta Warriors and Horses, but chriots.
The decisive force is still infantry.
I have said their's no helmet of Qin's army, and they still use bronze weapons. I don't know what Alexander
use? bronze or iron? Though iron had been used in weapons.in China, Qin's army still equipedit's army with bronze weapons. they defeat others because it's armies were organized better than others in China.
But who can say Alexander's army not well organized, his army maybe organize best.

So Alexander have more advantages than Qin's. I agree with you.

I also have a question: what's was Qin's armies' armor made of?bronze?leather or stone pieces discovered
If not stone, is there any archeological dicovery of metal armor(to ordinary soldier, not generals)?I haven't heard.
I think leather armor is most possible.
Stone-piece armor is also a little possible because it's very practicable(as discovered) and cheap.
(haha, maybe it's guess or a joke.)