If Alexander Invade China

[simonov]

What happen if Alexander invade China, during the time is only 5 state with Qin is the great. Is Alexander can win or not?

[eecsmaster]

question is, can Alex the boy even get there?

[Pointblank]

question is, can Alex the boy even get there?

He did get to India... and won... but his army was too exhausted to go further. Perhaps a bit of rest would have given his army enough strength to push onwards?

[hongkongpride]

Well of course this scenario is pure hypothesis because after 11 years of virtually non stop fighting, Alexander's men were throughly fed up and refused to march further

but what if:

He had reached the seven of Warring States who would have prevailed, the greatest General the Ancient World has known or one of the Greatest tyrants in history: The First Emperor?

Interesting scenario: Alexander reached India in 326 and fought the battle of Hydaspes in the same year aginst the Indian King Porus, Alexander being 30 in that year. Assuming Alexander rested his men and recruited new troops from Persia and India, he would most likely taken the route through Afghanistan which he was familiar with and probably would have lasted up to 15-20 years-assume the COIN operations against the Afghans were successful and that Alex has never been defeated in history (except by his own men).

Hypothetically, he would have reached what is now called China in about 305BC, popping up around the north of the state of Qin, the modern day Gansu province(taking the Afghan route thru the Khybar Pass).

In 305 BC Qin and Qi were the strongest states before Qi's devastating defeat in 300BC by Gen. Yue Yan of the Yan State, leading to the demise of Qi as a superpower. So if Alexander appeared in 305BC it would be Qin that would face him. I will just list the advantages of each army because it is impossible to decide the victor as neither army fought each other.

Compared to the state of Qin in 305BC, (NOT the Empire/Dynasty)

In tactics and strategy, I would think Alexander to be far superior as he was the inventor/adopter of the flying wedge, hammer and anvil and (flank and roll)ing up the centre strategies as well as relying on combined arms operations that offset his numerical inferiority. In technology, he Macedonian army featured a mobile siege train of catapults, ballistas, mobile hospitals and well as the dreaded phalanx formation and the use of elephants and horse archers from Persia. His men had superb morale, could quickly adapt to different climates and were battle hardened veterans

I am not sure who the First Emperor would send to fight Alexander, but unless he was someone special Alexander would have annihilated his army.
Qin troops had a superiorty in numbers due to conscription, the drawback being somewhat lowered morale, the fear factor due to their bloodthirstiness in executing their prisoners (at the Battle of Changping the Qin massacred 150,000-400,000 captured Zhao soldiers-figures vary.)-although it would not have an impact on the Macedonians as they had never faced the Qin before. Also, the Qin had eighteen-foot long iron pikes and the crossbow-which could punch through any macedonian or even Roman shield-a decisive factor in any engagement.

In an engagement on the rocky, but relatively open terrain of Gansu: The Macedonians would probably use combined arms as usual against the Qin. The Qin army strategy used crossbows to suppress the enemy and then charged with swords, daggers and pikes. The cunning Alexander, based on a study of his his tactics, before the battle would send envoys to the other six states asking for an alliance against the Qin (hézòng, 合縱 "vertically linked")-of which Qi and Chu based on their hate of Qin would most likely join. Thus, the Qin would be forced to fight on three fronts, and Alexander would not have been outnumbered so much, about 50,000 Macedonians+100,000 Persians and Indians vs 250,000 Qin soldiers.

Alex would prob. send his Companion Cavalry and horse archers around the flanks of the Qin army in preparation for either the flying wedge or hammer and anvil and skirmishers to thin out the Qin archers and absorb the crossbow bolts (meat shields:( ) and march up the phanlanx as well as sending the Elephants charging up. In a close up battle, the Macedonian pikes (sarissa) would be longer than the Qin pikes.

So the decisive factors here are when facing Alex the Great (alex will have fewer men but better equipped on the whole and better motivation): 1. are the Qin soldiers elite or just conscipts and WILL they break when the elephants charge into them?(It is possible to kill or make an elephant go crazy by shooting crossbow bolts at it-but the elephant will run amok in your ranks causing more trouble)

2. Will the Qin crossbows kill enough of the armoured Macedonians in the phalanx before the Macedonian sarissas rip into them?

3. will the Qin be able to hold off the ANNOYING horse archers while dealing with the elephants and phalanx (Qin lost many times to Zhao who were using Xiongnu style horse archers) and the lethal Companion cavalry?

4.Can the Qin general hold off Alexander or find a way to neutralize his crazy combined arms operations? eg. using geography-fighting where he could use his numbers to his advantage

5.Can Qin unite the other six states against Alex or will the hatred of Chu and Qi cause them to ally with Alex instead (although the irony is the'll probably be next-similar to what happened in the Warring States period when some stupid kings allied with Qin 連橫liánhéng, "horizontally linked" such as Yan and ended up regretting it afterwards-watch "the Emperor and the Assassin" with Gong Li to find out=)

Enough talking for me,

I'll let you guys decide on who wins:)

Cheers

[coolieno99]

He did get to India... and won... but his army was too exhausted to go further. Perhaps a bit of rest would have given his army enough strength to push onwards?
Alex was supposely killed in India by an Indian archer. He could never have went on to China.

[eecsmaster]

no he fell sick and kicked the bucket.

But HKPride definitely has way too much time on his hands.

[A Pirate]

In an engagement on the rocky, but relatively open terrain of Gansu: The Macedonians would probably use combined arms as usual against the Qin. The Qin army strategy used crossbows to suppress the enemy and then charged with swords, daggers and pikes. The cunning Alexander, based on a study of his his tactics, before the battle would send envoys to the other six states asking for an alliance against the Qin (hézòng, 合縱 "vertically linked")-of which Qi and Chu based on their hate of Qin would most likely join. Thus, the Qin would be forced to fight on three fronts, and Alexander would not have been outnumbered so much, about 50,000 Macedonians+100,000 Persians and Indians vs 250,000 Qin soldiers.



I can't agree any more. If Alexander can get the support from the Six States to the east of Xiao Mountain，Qin would be confronted by a disaster

[fishhead]

I can't agree any more. If Alexander can get the support from the Six States to the east of Xiao Mountain，Qin would be confronted by a disaster

That couldn't be true.

At that time, China's backward west area couldn't support a troop with "about 50,000 Macedonians+100,000 Persians and Indians", logistic forbidden. They would be lunky if Alexander could bring in 30,000 troops from there.

Only east China could provide economic support for such size an army at that time. This is why Qin was always safe in west side, no big army could reach it in that direction, but Qin was the most westward kingdom with abundant fertilized land that supported its army as big as 600,000 men.

Also the problem for Alexander is that he heavily depended on his cavalry, whose charges almost nobody could resist. But Qin developed a very efficient way to fight with cavalry - the crossbow troop. Remember the Kingdom Zhao was famous for its cavalry as well, modeled based on Huns' cavalry, but it was defeated repeatly by Qin. Alexander wouldn't have much luck since his cavalry was not heaviy armored.

And China at that time was the walled states - every city was walled and it's very hard to sack it in the short time. In Jin's civil war it took one side 3 years to siege one city but couldn't sourrender it. In this situation number do mean things for attacking different cities at the same time, but Alexander didn't have, so he wouldn't have a chance if he could come to China.

[BLUEJACKET]

That's why I think that if he ever had come to China, it would have been from the South, skiting high mountains and huge deserts-via SE Asia- provided he could defeat the ancient Vietnamese. If the Mongols couldn't do theat in Vietnam & Burma, how on Earth the Macedonians could have?

http://www.visitasia.co.uk/map.gif

[fishhead]

When people compare the warfare capabilities, you need to keep in the mind that by Alexander time, Chinese civilization had evolved into the stage that not one or two decisive battles could finish one power kingdom. The First Emperor's unification was the result of hundred years continuous effort, by politics, military and economy, it's simply the last strike.

In the First Emperor's grand father time, Qin and Zhao fought a big battle, and Qin captured 400,000 Zhao's soldiers and executed all of them, spared only 240, which is still one of the biggest massacre in the world history. But even after such catastrophic result for Zhao, Qin couldn't sack Zhao's capital and troops got exhausted, had to withdraw. By the First Emperor's time, all other six kingdoms had been exhausted in the fighting, and lost any will to challenge Qin. But still, it took Qin 10 years to conquer them one by one, with others just watching in standby. To conquer Chu, Qin mobilized 600,000 troops, a massive unimaginable force at that time. So to be successful in China, not only you need the combat skill, most important is the nation building strategy, as Qin's kings did all along the road. Combat capability of one general alone is very short lived, not decisive factor in Chinese history.

And that never changed. In Song dynasty, it took Mongol 60 years continuous fight to defeat Song, with a lot of help from Chinese themselves(north Chinese constitued the bulk of Mongolian force), while it only took them couple of years to sweep the other Euroasia continent - an astonishing short time to cover such a huge size. You can name a decisive battle Mongols fought with other countries, but you hardly can name one they fought decisively in China.

[sinowarrior]

Firstly from military weapon perspective, Qin will have an edge over Alex’s soldier, Qin army’s weapon was mass produced in a factory like manner, so weapons and cross bow components were interchangeable and also the metallurgy in China was better to other part of words. Most importantly the crossbow used by Qin was the most sophisticated weapon in the known world, with carefully manufactured trigging mechanism and targeting device.
As for combined arm tactics, China has long practiced combined arm tactic, the war chariots tactics used by Chinese during the warring states were in fact combined arm, and each war chariot was supported by a number (50?) ground troops, also Qin’s army had phalanx formation and also derived the three rank tactic for its crossbow army, so in this respect Qin also had an advantage over Alex. Lastly
Training is hard to determine but Qin had training round for its crossbow, spherical tipped crossbow round rather than arrow tipped, so Qin’s troop should receive some training at least, so a pure conscript army is very unlikely.
During Alex’s time, saddle was not invented, so Companion cavalry’s effect against well placed phalanx and crossbow will be limited, and as already demonstrated in battle of ChangPing Qin army used at least 5000 cavalry, (又一军五千骑绝赵壁闲), which suggested Qin is well practised in cavalry tactics, also after the unification Qin fought and beat the Hun’s with its crossbow tactics. Therefore Companion cavalry’s effectiveness against Qin’s army can not be overstated.
Overall in weapon and cavalry, Alex does not possess any advantage over the Qin army, as for formation and tactic both Qin and Alex army are on equal footing. Training is hard to measure, since there is no solid information on training, but one thing for sure, both Alex’s troop and the core of Qin’s army will be veterans who fought numerous battles. The sole advantage enjoyed by Alex will be elephant, but if the setting is at Gansu, there is no way to bring living elephants to do battle, and Qin is bordering with Chu and even conquered some Chu’s area(southern china) , so Qin should have experienced elephant before, well at least knew what they are. However Alex will not have faced massed crossbow before, and as demonstrated in Sparta and Athens’s war, even well trained Spartans will surrender when showered by arrows, phalanx formation is just to slow. Another interesting thing is Qin may be able to field some catapult or giant crossbow during the battle, since stone thrower already existed during that period (范蠡兵法飞石重十二斤，为机发行三百步), and even if Elephant can cause indented havoc, Qin army will simply build defence fortifications just to tire down the Alex’s army, (very similar to WW1’s trench warfare, army are stalemated)
Therefore Alex’s troop’s fate will be similar to Zhao’s army at Changping, butchered to the last man.

[crobato]

One difference between the Greeks and the Persians was that the Greeks, after having fighting among themselves so long, they developed into a battle hardened race. The Persians brought peace and prosperity to the numerous nations of the Middle East under their reign, and so they became relatively soft.

China, during the time of Alexander, wasn't in one of those "soft from peace" or "decaying from corruption" or "bankrupt from being overstretched" periods, that typically afflicts highly civilized, prosperous, sedentary cultures. Rather, coming out from one of those most brutal wars in its history, the survivors and victors were extremely battle hardened, backed by doctrines like the Art of War, that view war as a total enterprise from politics to assymetrical strategies.

[zhangjf]

It's hard to say,But the desert between China and Middle East will prevent him.During ancient time,natural barrier is more powerful than any troops.If he invaded China,I think he would die in some place in the vast desert.If he went to China by sea,he must went through unknown sea,and the thyphone in West Pacific is very powerful,he might become the food of fishes.(Like Mongles in Japan).

[zraver]

Assuming Alexander made it to China he would have won. Like Sudedei and Sun Tzu he was one of those rare indivuals born to battle. Of all the truly great commanders there are less than 20 for all of human history.

Alexander the Great, Scipio, Sudedei, Barbarossa, Sun Tzu, Julius Ceaser, Patton, Robert E Lee, Atilla, Mainstien etc. I am less familiar with the eastern greats.


You guys are under estimating the effect of the phalanx on enemy troops. with oak backed bronze faced sheilds, bronze or lamilar armor, bronze helms and 24 foot long pikes the sheer forward mass of the unit was awesome. Xenophon and 10,000 greek Hoplites with just 12 foot pikes shattered a Persian army many times its size. The Chinese enver developed the pushing tactics of the hellenic world instead fighting with much looser formations. When dealing with hellenic heavies the sum is far greater than the whole. The bronze armor and sheilds not only protected the troops the gave the men behind them solid purchase to push. a front of 1000 men 15 deep would push as a unit placing the force of 15,000 men into the space of just 1000.

As for Afghanistan Alexander was there, and left the area its proud bactrian heritage. So he had a direct route to China if he wanted it. Also any technological advantages the Chinese enjoyed would be short lived. Alexander as a military genius never left a weapon unused beucase it wasn't Hellenic. His troops (probalby recruited locals) would soon be using the best of Chinese technology and tactics alongside the Hellenic and Persian forces.

[Kilo636]

Assuming Alexander made it to China he would have won. Like Sudedei and Sun Tzu he was one of those rare indivuals born to battle. Of all the truly great commanders there are less than 20 for all of human history.

Alexander the Great, Scipio, Sudedei, Barbarossa, Sun Tzu, Julius Ceaser, Patton, Robert E Lee, Atilla, Mainstien etc. I am less familiar with the eastern greats.


You guys are under estimating the effect of the phalanx on enemy troops. with oak backed bronze faced sheilds, bronze or lamilar armor, bronze helms and 24 foot long pikes the sheer forward mass of the unit was awesome. Xenophon and 10,000 greek Hoplites with just 12 foot pikes shattered a Persian army many times its size. The Chinese enver developed the pushing tactics of the hellenic world instead fighting with much looser formations. When dealing with hellenic heavies the sum is far greater than the whole. The bronze armor and sheilds not only protected the troops the gave the men behind them solid purchase to push. a front of 1000 men 15 deep would push as a unit placing the force of 15,000 men into the space of just 1000.




You are assuming the Chinese will be standing like a block facing the so called
phalanx one on one on a fair gorund?

[crobato]

The Chinese fight with looser formations because they often deal with guerilla tactics. Read more about Sun Tzu and you see why. You put a phalnax on a pass, thinking the Chinese would be stupid to attack it headon, when in fact, they're more likely to take a detour and would already burning your undefended camp to the ground. They don't attack headon, at least the skilled generals would not. Their strategy is based on moving like water; attack where there is a vacuum, hold your ground when defenses are high.

Alexander had no direct access to China. If he had gone north, he would be dealing with no less than the Huns. Phalnax isn't going to work in the open desert against an all cavalry all archery force. If he came to China, he isn't going to find an empire like the Persians that had been softened with peace and prosperity, but one that has been torn by civil wars, leaving extremely battle hardened and experienced armies, much like the Greeks were when they faced the Persians. Among the personages he may have to deal with may be no less than Sun Tzu himself or Qin Shi Huangdi himself, who despite his tyranny, can be rated a genius.

In various parts of China he may have to face local challenges. Like in India, humid conditions along the south play havoc against laminar constructed shields, since they soften and often fall apart. This is a reason why southerners fielding solid wooden crossbows are able to find measure against northerners using laminar recurved bows. Another is contending with specialized forces. One of the least known of all Chinese military achievements was the creation of specialized commando forces that are trained to fight aboard a ship, people picked that are trained to resist sea sickness, people who are trained to do amphibous landings. Thus the first marines were born, from the kingdom of Wu, the same kingdom where Sun Tzu originated. These marines proved their hand with the survival of this kingdom, with their brazen attacks and offensives against northern rival kingdoms attempting to pass the Yangtze river to attack Wu. Their most notable achievement is defeating Cao Cao in the battle of Red Cliffs despite the superior numbers Cao Cao had in his disposal, including his vaunted elite cavalry and Hunnic units.

[sinowarrior]

Complex weapon system can not be learned overnight, metallurgy can not be improved in short time span. Most importantly the Art of War despises the open ground battle, so before Alex had a chance of battle, his supply deport is likely to be razed to the ground, his army harassed and ambushed numerous times and even if an open battle is fought, he would nonetheless face arrows that will give him and his army a really good shade to fight under.
Persian army was routed because they haven’t fight any major battles and are recruited from various little kingdoms within the empire, but Alex in China will face Qin’s army who had been fighting total war for years, and its soldier are disciplined under the Legalist principles its general trained under the art of war

[crobato]

A short course on Legalism for those who do not know.

Legalism and the Legalists of Ancient China

Upon first acquaintance the so-called Legalist philosophy of government in ancient China seems no more than a rationalization by political administrators for their having total political control of their societies. And perhaps this was the way Legalism arose, but over time the Legalist administrators and advisors formulated enough tenets and principles that their ideas had at least the semblance of a philosopy of political and social administration.

The era in which administrators openly avowed Legalism was about 300 BCE to 200 BCE, the time of the conquest of the six kingdoms of the Warring States Period by the Kingdom of Qin (Ch'in); i.e., the time of the creation of the Chinese Empire. Legalist ministers were instrumental in the strengthening of Qin to enable it to conquer the other kingdoms.

Before the conquest of the other kingdoms by Qin and the creation of the Chinese Empire, what is now China consisted of a multitude of principalities wracked by chronic warfare. Not only did the seven kingdom go to war with each other, there were feudal subdivisions within the kingdoms which fought with each other and with the rulers of their kingdom.

Warfare in this Warring States period was a definite calamity for the people but the social and economic situtations were not complete misery. The Chinese civilization of the time was a thousand to two thousand years ahead of Europe and the Middle East in terms of technology. At a time when no one in Europe or the Middle East could melt even one ounce of iron, in china people were casting multi-ton objects, a feat that Britain was not able to achieve until the eighteenth century.

The fractured politics of ancient China appeared to be an unnecessary burdern upon an otherwise brilliant civilization. There had been attempts to unite the feuding states before Qin Shihuang conquered the other kingdoms. But such conquests had little effect on the fragmentation because the conquering monarch had to divide up control of the conquered states among his subordinates and they, in turn, divided up control of their territory among their subordinates. This hierarchical subdivision was the essence of feudalism. After a few generations the feudal subunits emerged as autonomous states ready and willing to fight with their overlords or the lords of other feudal subunits. Thus the conquests did not lead to consolidation. What was needed by the conquering states was not just a victory in the field but a system of governance that would retain control.

There were a number of philosophies of political administration that were vying for adoption by the monarchs of the kingdoms. Confucianism, which had arisen about 500 BCE, stressed the importance of filial allegiance and ritual and probably was the dominant philosophy of the time. The Confucians asseted that humans were basically good and that evil came from the failures of the systems under which they lived. Mohism was a philosophy propounded by Mo Ti (usually referred by the name of his book Mo Tzu), a teacher who initially was a Confucian. He proposed that the problems of humans could be solved by universal love. If everyone loved everyone then disputes could not exist, at least according to the Mohists. While that proposition might be acceptable the panacea lacked a practical path for its implementation.

Some of the royal administrators averred that from their experience humans were fundamentally evil, and given the opportunity would perpetrate the most apalling acts of selfishness, including, most importantly, disloyalty to their rulers. The administrators who became known as Legalists asserted that humans could be dissuaded from acting upon their selfish impulses only if they faced a set of rigidly enforced punishments for evil, selfish behavior. This meant that the basis for a just, prosperous and contented society is a set of well-publicized laws and the punishments that are to be meted out for their violation. Thus the name that was adopted for this philosophy of political administration is Legalism.

But Legalism went beyond the proposition of the need for a comprehensive set of laws. The three elements of proper government according to Legalist theory were:

Shih: Power and position
Shu: Administrative techniques and methods
Fa: A Comprehensive system of laws.

The Legalists not only asserted that humans were by nature evil but they expanded their notion of evil to include those activities which were not deemed socially productive, such as reading and scholarship. The Legalists believed that the only productive occupations were farming and weaving. This meant that reading was simply a waste of the labor resources of the society. So all books other than those on farming, weaving and divination were burned, and those scholars who refused to heed the administrators' edicts against pursuing useless activities were punished and some were even buried alive.

The dictum of Han Fei Tzu was

In the state of an intelligent ruler
there are no books,
instead the laws serve as lessons.

The Legalists sanctioned military activities as essential to the survival and expansion of of the political sector. The feudal nobility were individually required to demonstrate military process in order to be accepted as members of that class. However the Legalists destroyed the political power of that feudal class. Administrative was removed from the feudal nobles and put into the hands of a professional bureaucracy. The bureaucrats could come from any class and entry was to be based upon ability rather than birth.

The heyday of Legalism was in Qin just before the creation of the Chinese Empire. The Legalist hammered Qin into a strong state with a strong military. That enabled its armies to defeat the other kingdoms and create the Chinese Empire. But the Qin dynasty survived only a few years after the death of the first emperor. The Han dynasty that took over control of the empire adopted the Qin innovation of a professional bureaucracy to run the empire.

http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/legalism.htm

[fishhead]

Legalism and the Legalists of Ancient China


It's the equivalent to the modern day's fascism, or more likely NAZI ideas.

They basically talk the samething, the state has the absolute power over individuals. And Legalism went even further: the whole value of an individual is to contribute to the strength of the state.

[Violet Oboe]

Please fishhead do not parrot crude slogans about non existent links between chinese legalism developed 2000 years ago as a moral base for a dynastic feudal state and barely 100 year old principles of a totalitarian ideology.

Legal positivism as developed by Carl Schmitt (radical utilitarism) was indeed one of the pivotal elements of the national socialist state (italian fascism was slightly different drawing more on roman classics) but Hitler's intellectual comrades had certainly not ancient China in mind during the formative phase of their ideology in 20's of the 20th century.

P.S.: Drawing this kind of parallels could easily lead to wrong conclusions about contemporary China since neo conservatives and radical nationalists in the US are already describing China in a distortive and provocative way using a completely inadequate vocabulary. The fascist ideology died more than sixty years ago with the fall of nazi Germany, fascist Italy and their respective client states (Japan pre '45 was an imperialist military dictatorship but not a fascist regime!). Reviving a certain type of ancient propaganda talk serves only the interests of people who are keen to demonize China for quite palpable purposes. :mad:

[sinowarrior]

modern day's fascism

Legalism has some concept that is similar to modern day rule of law, especially under Shang Yang’s equality before the law, and the concept of legalism from Shang Jun Shu is the law is the ultimate governing concept, and in this respect it is very similarly to European theory of law. Shih: Power and position Shu: Administrative techniques and methods components in the Legalism changed the entire concept, since it places the King as the ultimate manifest of law, in this respect the king is virtually the God, and the very grund norm of the law. Therefore this system is not different from the Greek concept of law, only the origin of law is different, one is based on constitution another based on the king, but the concept of rule of law is nonetheless the same. The closest comparison to legalism is Niccolo’ Machivaelli and his concept of rulership in The Prince

[fishhead]

Come on, when did I say "Hitler's intellectual comrades had ancient China in mind"?

What I said is "equivalent to", and you seem even not to understand what "Legalism" means in Chinese history.

[zraver]

Complex weapon system can not be learned overnight, metallurgy can not be improved in short time span. Most importantly the Art of War despises the open ground battle, so before Alex had a chance of battle, his supply deport is likely to be razed to the ground, his army harassed and ambushed numerous times and even if an open battle is fought, he would nonetheless face arrows that will give him and his army a really good shade to fight under.
Persian army was routed because they haven’t fight any major battles and are recruited from various little kingdoms within the empire, but Alex in China will face Qin’s army who had been fighting total war for years, and its soldier are disciplined under the Legalist principles its general trained under the art of war

No but they can be captured, thier base of manufacturing secured, the those trained in thier use recruited (Alexander was remarkably effective in recruiting locals). Alexander was a military genius who beat every type of army thrown agaisnt him from massive Persian slave armies, Greek city states, wealthy Indian Empires, Barbarians, Scythians, Afghans (Bactrians) everyone failed, why would China be so different vs a literal god or war?

Generals may have been trained in the art of war so what, that worked real well vs the Japanese in 37 or vs the Colonial powers, or vs Russia, or vs the Mongols. Alexander understood the art of war to his very bones. His core troops were uber elite who had more experiance fighting more and different types of foes than any other army in history excpet the Mongols.

If China was so unbeatalbe was has it bene beaten by so many different powers? China is a great power and a pillar of civilisation but it most definately is not the middle kingdom.

[fishhead]

Generals may have been trained in the art of war so what, that worked real well vs the Japanese in 37 or vs the Colonial powers, or vs Russia, or vs the Mongols. Alexander understood the art of war to his very bones. His core troops were uber elite who had more experiance fighting more and different types of foes than any other army in history excpet the Mongols.


You really don't understand that Japan fought with China many times, and only gained up hand once. Hun was defeated by Chinese but destroyed Roman.
Bulk of Mongal troops were Chinese since at the time of Mongal rising, China was splited already.

Alex even couldn't cross India, let alone came to China. And his troops would be piece meal for Chinese. Qin's troops easily defeated Hun, but it took Han 100 years to achieve that.

[fishhead]

Read history of Battle of Baekgang
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Baekgang

That single battle subdued Japan for 1000 years, there is no western battle that achieved this kind of overwheleming.

[crobato]

No but they can be captured, thier base of manufacturing secured, the those trained in thier use recruited (Alexander was remarkably effective in recruiting locals). Alexander was a military genius who beat every type of army thrown agaisnt him from massive Persian slave armies, Greek city states, wealthy Indian Empires, Barbarians, Scythians, Afghans (Bactrians) everyone failed, why would China be so different vs a literal god or war?

Generals may have been trained in the art of war so what, that worked real well vs the Japanese in 37 or vs the Colonial powers, or vs Russia, or vs the Mongols. Alexander understood the art of war to his very bones. His core troops were uber elite who had more experiance fighting more and different types of foes than any other army in history excpet the Mongols.

If China was so unbeatalbe was has it bene beaten by so many different powers? China is a great power and a pillar of civilisation but it most definately is not the middle kingdom.

Ancient China was NEVER conquered by any foreign power until Kublai Khan (only to become a major Sinophile himself). Not even Chinggis Khan himself was able to conquer the Song Dynasty, which was considered a militarily weak dynasty. It finally took his grandson to do it, and even that was lost in a generation. You cannot say the same with Greeks, who eventually lost to the Romans.

And no, Alexander didn't conquer the Indians either, other than some local warlords.

[Violet Oboe]

@fishhead: my post was about european history and not about China, nevertheless I wanted to make you aware that people in the west and especially in the US have some dangerous misconceptions about China just because they know so little about chinese history and philosophy.

Introducing a specific term (for 20 th century totalitarism) to the discussion like ´facism´or ´nazism´is counterproductive since most educated westerners are not aware of the chinese historical background but much more about selective parts of 20th century european history. Consequently they will get the ´story´wrong and could eventually come to the conclusion that China is the millenia old cradle of totalitarian ideologies and a grave danger to ´their´ strain of civilization. (Obviously that outcome serves only a ´clash of civilization´theorist...:nono: )

After all some of your arguments are certainly valid as the fascist rule of law does indeed mean that the law serves the synthesis of people and state (´peoples-state´ - ´peoples-society´) and that the state embodied personally by the leaders of the state is at least in certain cases ´above´the law. This kind of ´relativism´was already fully developed under the rule of Qin Shi Huang but you will find similar basics in the works of Macchiavelli almost 1800 years later.

[fishhead]

@fishhead: my post was about european history and not about China, nevertheless I wanted to make you aware that people in the west and especially in the US have some dangerous misconceptions about China just because they know so little about chinese history and philosophy.


I understand your concern and as a Chinese myself I have no intention to increase that misconceptions. But since we talk about academic stuffs so I really care very little about the "political correctness" but only fact.

The nature of Chinese "Legalism", was very similiar to modern day European fascism, the major difference is that Chinese Legalism had no racial elements in it. The common point is that the goal of the state is survival and conquering, the goal of the individual is to contribute to the state, and nothing else. Legalism even thinks commercial trade, art, academic research, philosophy are not useful things for that goal, and should be eliminated.

The Legalism achieved the stunning victory in China, unified the country but fell quickly. Since Qin dynasty nobody in China ever tried to restore that idea, that's the fact.

[zraver]

You really don't understand that Japan fought with China many times, and only gained up hand once. Hun was defeated by Chinese but destroyed Roman.
Bulk of Mongal troops were Chinese since at the time of Mongal rising, China was splited already.

Alex even couldn't cross India, let alone came to China. And his troops would be piece meal for Chinese. Qin's troops easily defeated Hun, but it took Han 100 years to achieve that.

Alexanders troops wouldn't cross india and he died early. That is ahuge differance from COULDN'T. Alexanders troops made it to the border of modern day China when the conquered Bactria. If his troops had been willing he could ahve gone on, he wanted too.

Alexander like Sudedei and a few others were without peer when it came to war. To think that mere average or even good generals could have stopped these types of men is insane. They were never stopped not by anyone. Like a hurricane or typhoon they were a force of nature that goes wher eand when it wanted.

[fishhead]

Alexanders troops wouldn't cross india and he died early. That is ahuge differance from COULDN'T. Alexanders troops made it to the border of modern day China when the conquered Bactria.

It's simply NOT the fact. The fact is that Alexander did invade India and fought quite a few battles there. But their troops stopped at the Beas River and refused to go, they knew it's not a vacation.

He couldn't.

Alexander's war was simply not camparable to Chinese at that time. His troops numbered always around 50k. But Chinese warfare was million soldier level. Qin could mobiliz 600,000 men at one time, and one war could last 2-3 years. Alexander's troop was simply piece meal in Chinese eyes.

You got to note that Hun never invaded China during Chinese warring state period, everyone was war-hardened. Their military was even stronger than the unified Han dynasty.

[zraver]

It's simply NOT the fact. The fact is that Alexander did invade India and fought quite a few battles there. But their troops stopped at the Beas River and refused to go, they knew it's not a vacation.

He couldn't.

Alexander's war was simply not camparable to Chinese at that time. His troops numbered always around 50k. But Chinese warfare was million soldier level. Qin could mobiliz 600,000 men at one time, and one war could last 2-3 years. Alexander's troop was simply piece meal in Chinese eyes.

You got to note that Hun never invaded China during Chinese warring state period, everyone was war-hardened. Their military was even stronger than the unified Han dynasty.

The premis of the thread was IF, not could. Assuming His troops were willing to go on then he would have gone on. I have faith that his abilites in both military skill and recruiting allies would have seen him thrash China the same way he thrashed everyone else.

[crobato]

And I don't think he could conquer even India. In India he was already having serious problems. The core of his armies, the Greeks themselves, just about had enough, and they're his most battle hardened troops. They were getting demoralized, and view the tropics and its diseases as a place of demons. The "allies" are of suspicious character, which you cannot vouch for loyalty. His armies became more mongrel as he moves further, using a lot of Persians among the ranks, who was also increasingly getting tired. This is not to mention that his troops are being beseiged with disease. Shields don't work well in tropical weather, the glue for lamination often coming off due to humidity. Imagine a phalanx with soldiers looking at their warped and falling apart shields.

[fishhead]

And I don't think he could conquer even India. In India he was already having serious problems. The core of his armies, the Greeks themselves, just about had enough, and they're his most battle hardened troops. They were getting demoralized, and view the tropics and its diseases as a place of demons.

Militarily, I don't think any particular greatness regarding Alexander and his battles.

What he faced was an unified but weak Persia, which made his job quite easy - you cut the central nerve of it and whole empire collasped. If Persia was splited, he would find it's a job impossible, just like Rome found later.

The greatness of Alexander is his capability of sensing the moment, he chose the right time to attack Persia. But when his troops entered India, after a few battles they found no hope to conquer the India. India was splited at that time and each tribe or kingdom was not very strong, but there was no central nerve so they had to battle everybody - and that totally exposed the weakness of Alexander and his troops.

To vent his frustration, Alexander killed the entire population of Massaga in India battle, which did explain something.

[fishhead]

Militarily, Alexander actually only fought one war - with Persia. The vast area he conquered was the result of Persia Empire contribution, much less to his own effort.

The greeks had some real taste of warfares in India and they simply withdrew - they could only pick up the soft. Compared with Mongol, according to Chinese historical record, Mongols wiped out 60 kingdoms on their way marching to the west, against different culture, different people, different kingdoms, that really shows their military skill.

[crobato]

What happened in India tells you a lot. For a commander that greatly inspired his troops for much of the Middle East, in the end, they were on the verge of deserting him. What happened to their vaunted discipline? So these disciplined soldiers felt they want to quit? It is not unlike Alexander to quit, but he *DID*. If one had studied the relentless he pursued his campaigns, what happened in the end is totally on odds to the earlier Alexander.

So what happened in India? Despite what (Greek) historians tried to tell, something must have happened to break the back of confidence in Alexander's army, if not on himself. Losing his horse Bellepheron didn't help things, it would have been perceived as a bad omen.

[sinowarrior]

For Alexander to recruit local population to fight is just like for Huns to recruit local Chinese to fight, I doubt the Chinese will fight under Alexander, and if Alexander is launching an attack through Northern route, he is likely to face Qin and Zhao around that time, both of them are fame for their prowess in warfare.

[crobato]

One reason why Persian Empire failed is that the PE failed to integrate cavalry into their own forces. The PE already suffered a number of reverses against the Scythians to the north, and it was from the Scythians that gave Alexander the idea to integrate a cavalry arm to his army.

In that way, Alexander was an innovator because he was the first in that region of the world to have a true cavalry force. He needed that cavalry to cover his flanks because he also modified the phalanx. by using longer pikes (13 to 16 feet long), he was able to create a phalanx that is four or five ranks deeps where the other Greeks, using 9 feet lances, are only able to produce phalanx up to 3 ranks deep. While giving greater concentraiton of power, this new phalanx however tends to be very stiff so he needed the cavalry to cover the sides.

Unlike the Persians, Zhao kingdom was the first Chinese kingdom to integrate cavalry into their forces, as a result of being introduced to the concept by the Huns. Zhao went as far as copying the nomad dress, trousers/pajamas et all, since wearing skirts (which the Greeks under Alexander still did) gets in the way of horseriding.

Being in the west, Qin also adopted cavalry into their ranks. Thus unlike the PE, Alexander would also be facing true integrated, joint cavalry-infantry forces, one that is also bolstered by the use of crossbow and iron weapons.

Qin is something else. The whole kingdom is an innovation by itself. Because of Legalist principles, the Qin is a state made from top to bottom, for war. The concept of a nation as a complete war machine, and this is it. It lacked the feudalistic baggage the other kingdoms have, and which Alexander himself has not thrown the yoke of either.

While Alexander understands the need to gain allies, the problem this guy has is that he demands allies must submit to the altar of Hercules, which Alexander claims as an ancestor. Do that against the Huns and proto-Tibetans, and you will surely get laughed at, and that is why I think he won't get far in getting allies.

[sinowarrior]

During the warring states, China developed the concept of total war and something that is very similar to trench warfare, Qin or Zhao’s army will build massive fortifications to block the bath of Alex’s troop and mass tens of thousands of cavalry armed with crossbow to harass and attack the supply depot and the rear of the enemy. All the famed ancient European land battle victories are involved with tactical battles, two armies facing each other, one crushes another. However the Chinese art of war is based on deception, strategic planning, and battles are won before two armies started fighting. Also the assumption is for Alex to gain local support, but Qin may will use 离间计 spreading rumors among the Alex’s generals and common soldiers, and it will be effective, since Alex’s troops are made from Indian, Greek and Persian, and the tensions between Greeks and Persian are well known, it is likely for Alex to be suspicious , his general turned against each other, and his horde will collapse on its own before battles are fought.

[fishhead]

The "total war" concept started from the Lord of Shang, the God father of Legalist. He implemented the Legalism reform in Qin at 356 BC, the same year Alexander was born. He went to see King of Qin, the King told him, "Nobody cares Qin, that's the biggest humiliation of the world". Lord of Shang repliled, "The state is the machine of war".

Qin started the world first draft system, the foundation of the total war. The law required that every male reported to the state at the age 20, joined the army at the age 23. After 2 years service, he returned home as a reserve, ready being called by the state until 56. France was the first western country to have the similiar system in 1793, Prussia in 1813.

Lord of Shang also abandoned the tradition of aristocrats as the army officers. Qin troop officers were promoted from anybody, purly based on the merit of his war performance. And officers were professional, a soldier could become an officer as well. Oliver Cromwell did the same reform in Britain in 1645, to build his New Model Army.

[fishhead]

The other Lord of Shang reform, to turn Qin into a warring machine:

Abandon the privilege of aristocrat's ownship of the land, the land was distributed to the regular citizen who was limited to has only two careers to choose: a soldier or a farmer

Set up the military rank system associated with officer's income, which turned officier into professional

Set up the state wide censorship system to collect information of the population

Anybody not married by certain age would be punished, anybody married but no kids would be punished

Two or more adult sons must separate to live to have their own homes, otherwise have to pay more tax

........

[crobato]

Yes, I was thinking about the similarity of Qin to Napoleonic France, and to Prussia.

The basic tenet is the replacement of the professional mercenary, land owner, feudal lord, knight, slave owner, slave, militia, and conscripted peasant to that of the Patriotic Citizen as the center of soldiery.

[fishhead]

Another interesting point to compare, is the military doctrine. The contemporary Chinese at the warring state China, if they could wintness the Alexander's Perisa campagne, would feel odd. The first question might well be, "Do Alexander and Darius have to fight the battle themselves"?

When Sun Tze wrote his famous Art of War, it's still the routine in China for head of the state to go to battle himself, command the troops or fight himself. But at Alexander's time, it's a phenomeno long gone in China, the king didn't go to the front, he sent general and staff to the battle field. And even command-in-chief didn't fight, in the biggest battle fought between Qin and Zhou, the first command of Zhao troops was an old man close to 70.

That refects the bigger, and more complicated warfare scale and need for head of state kept away from the battle field, since he was the central nerve of the whole country. In the battle Zhao suffered 450,000 causalties, but King of Zhao still could organize efficient resistance to Qin troop's advance, delayed China's unification for another 40 years. In Alexander's war, Darius fleeing casued his troops collapse, in India shortly after Alexander was wounded by an arrow, the war stopped. But neither of them would happen in China, Chinese depended much on institution instead of on individuals.

[sinowarrior]

good point, during that battle the king of Qin was organizing logistical support to the front troops, and I don’t think the Shi Huang Di led any army to battle. Another achievement of Shang is to place Law as the supreme being of a nation, that everyone is equal before law, noble princes are just same as common peasants, this equality before law really changed Qin fundamentally

[simonov]

I want to know the Qin general name who kills the 400k POW. In that war how many soldier involve from boyh side?

[fishhead]

I want to know the Qin general name who kills the 400k POW. In that war how many soldier involve from boyh side?

This guy, one of the most successful general and brutal person in the wrold history - not many people know that
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bai_Qi

[simonov]

thx fishhead. I want to know who is the chinese general who can match Alex if he invade China..

[fishhead]

thx fishhead. I want to know who is the chinese general who can match Alex if he invade China..

He would not run into a single general but a bunch of waring states.

At Alexander's time, China was experiencing a transition time - all states were dog-fighting each other while 20 years after Lord of Shang's radical reform, Qin was posing to be the dominant power.

When Alexander fought his way east in 336-323BC China was in the fierce warfare as well:

340BC Qin attacked Wei
333BC Qi fought vs Chu
331BC Qin attacked Wei
328BC Qin attacked Zhao
325BC Qi fought with Han, Zhao
323BC Chu attacked Wei
320BC Yan attacked Zhao
318BC 5 states joined to attacked Qin

Every war was bigger than the battle Alexander fought, like in the Qin-Wei war in 331BC, Wei's KIA was 80,000.

[Vlad Plasmius]

It's theorized that Alexander was died because of his wound in India, taken from armed villagers as I recall. The wound would have made him very vulnerable to the diseases in India. So, it's quite possible Alexander the "Great" was killed by a commoner in India.

Alexander would never have survived fighting China. It's obvious his strategy was about fighting the weak and defenseless when they wouldn't join up with him. It's believed his plan after getting back was to go after Arabia, Carthage, and Italy. All of them were fairly weak at the time. However, it's quite possible he would not have even succeeded there.

[jason_she]

Simply seen on the map, he can only enter China through the south. And the jungle environment would be a big problem for the Europeans. Even if they get there, they would not be familiar with the landscape. According to the ancient war's experience, landscape is a key factor.

[peace]

He woud fail. At the same time, though China didn't unify, almost all the kingdoms wanted to establish a uniform emperty. Qin, Chu, Yan, Han, Zhao, Wei and Qi are the strong military power in China, especially Qin, Chu and Zhao. Qin, a kingdom in the west of China, was becoming the stronggest state in the China. I belive if the hypothesis was true, he would be fail.

[lwl0325]

alexander only have a small size army,in the warring states,the qin kingdom has more than 1 million soldiers with crossbow and great general like si ma cuo.he conquered the shu kingdom(chengdu,the sichuan province,my hometown)with 100.000 army.he across the qinling mountain (no road )with his army.he is great.can alexander against si ma cuo?

[lwl0325]

336BC,si ma cuo conquered shu ,alexander was a child!

[akinkhoo]

imo, the Qin army could win by maneuvering, having outnumber Alexander and having a lighter hence faster center (phalanx = powerful but slow center), they can do an envelope; and having superior archery, it would be hard to charge, and counter flanking would be slow against a long line.

the only way i know of, to beat a larger force with superior missile force is to shift your center toward the flank and concentrate on it which would be hard since it would break the phalanx and take time to reform the line.

the calvary charge is the most powerful attack Alexander has, and the only thing i feel can counter it would be poisonous arrows that can kill what would normally just wound you. so i like like to know if poison arrows has been developed and militarized during Qin.

[lwl0325]

qin has the largest calvary army in the warring states,a large number of the calvary have crossbow ,bows and spears,so the calvary war will be happen at first.so alexander have no way to charge the crossbow man. one hundred years when qin shi huang conquer the other country,qin has make war with xiong nu(the huns) and win the war.(the great wall have builded after the war).

[lwl0325]

The following are a chinese crossbow from the Qin dynasty era, which existed before the Han dynasty. It has a range of around 300 meters if shot in the proper trajectory and can have a rate of fire of up to 7 bolts per minute when used by a trained crossbowmen. It easily out-ranges most bows at the time, but has a somewhat slow firing rate.

Tips of bolts are in a thin triangular shape in order to provide the best aerodynamic performance. Of course during that age there is no such a subject as aerodynamics but we can conclude that the Qin army adapted this shape from experiences on the battlefield.
Attached Thumbnails

[lwl0325]

sorry,the picture is lost!

[Yue Fei]

No, it would be strategically impossible to go that far.