Alexander VS Qin dynasty

crobato said:

Oh and you somehow think that Proto-Huns were disorganized? They were quite organized in fact to be a such a major threat that the Qin launched major military campaigns against them. Nomadic, horse rider societies are in fact, quite organizationally, sophisticated & flexible to sustain the logistics of their survival.

I just laugh again and again, how stupid some people think 'ancient' Asians are.

Click to expand...

Please re-read post 167 very carefully. I am agreeing with you not differing. The only difference is I am seeing some humor in what you feel you must view as deadly serious.

As for the post about Mongols on Horseback getting 30% more penetration then archers on foot... WoW

Going to the Mythbusters site myself to see this one

Yes that was a bit of an information gem.

However, charging-forward mounted soldiers will suffer more damage because they are charging towards an enemy's projectile or melee weapon.

Click to expand...

True, but you can also charge forward to the enemy flanks.

Regarding Vesicles post about Mythbusters and mounted archers, did anyone watch the show?

Can someone post the details? Type of bow, size of bow, draw weight, bow technique, experience of shooter, arrow design, size of arrow, materials used for arrow, target design, size of target, and materials for target? Depth of penetration for each test? Range of shot? Type of horse? Surface the horse was running on?

Infra_Man99 said:

Regarding Vesicles post about Mythbusters and mounted archers, did anyone watch the show?

Can someone post the details? Type of bow, size of bow, draw weight, bow technique, experience of shooter, arrow design, size of arrow, materials used for arrow, target design, size of target, and materials for target? Depth of penetration for each test? Range of shot? Type of horse? Surface the horse was running on?

Click to expand...

Well, the specific myth they were testing was that a mounted archer galloping at 40 mph can double the penetration of the arrows when compared with an archer standing still. They initially tried to ask people with lots of experience in mounted archery to do this test. However, the speed of the horse and the extent of the draw varied too much (based on speed gun measurements of the speed of the horse and high-speed footage of the arrows traveling down to the target). They simply could not get a consistent picture.

Eventually, they decided to use a jeep instead of an actual horse since this myth was about kinetic energy. As long as they can shoot the arrows at 40 mph, that's fine. then they used a crossbow, which was calibrated to the average drawing strength of a longbow. This way, they can ge consistent drawing strength. They didn't mention the actual drawing strength. And honestly, I don't think it matters since they were comparing how kinetic energy alters the penetrating depth of an arrow. As long as they used the same bow and arrows for all the tests, it should serve the purpose just fine. This was indeed what they did. So I think they did a pretty good job eliminating all the variables and human factors and obtained a test platform with consistent speed and drawing strength.

In the end, they shot 10 arrows while on the jeep and standing still and shot the same 10 arrows with the jeep moving at 40 mph, all from a same distance away from the target. They found that the penetrating depth was NOT doubled, busting the myth. However, this was not the end of the story since they did find that shooting arrows at 40 mph statistically significantly increased the penetrating depth by ~25% (~8 inches standing still and ~11 inches at 40 mph). this was also supported by the high-speed photo analysis, which showed that the arrows traveled about 30% faster when being shot at 40 mph.

So they convincingly showed that mounted archers do have the ability to cause more damage than an archer standing still.

Vesicles, thanks for the information.


Here's my summary of Qin vs Alexander the Great . . .

I am going to choose a fair battle, which means the two sides have ZERO huge advantages in strategy, tactics, government, economy, technology, culture, religion, quantity, experience, training, and allies. If you argue about unfair battles, then the army with the most advantages obviously has the edge over the other army. I know the best army will pick a battle that completely favors itself, but, like I said, I am talking about a FAIR battle.

Qin army favored both melee and ranged units. The Qin army used lots of melee or lots of ranged units or a balanced mixture (~1:1 ratio) of melee and ranged units depending on the enemy. The Qin army favored using its ranged units whenever possible. The Qin army had a greater variety of bows and crossbows, superior arrows and bolts, and superior bows and crossbows than Alexander's army and other ancient European armies.

Both the Qin army and ancient European armies had a variety of melee weapons.

Alexander and most ancient European armies favored melee a lot more than ranged units. A typical army had 75% to 90% melee units with 25% to 10% ranged units.

In this fair battle with both sides having 100,000 soldiers, I think the Qin melee would be outnumbered by Alexander's melee, but the Qin ranged units would outnumber Alexander's ranged units. Then Qin army would PROBABLY have around 50,000 melee and around 50,000 ranged units, while the ancient European army would PROBABLY have 80,000 melee and 20,000 ranged units. The Qin melee would be significantly outnumbered, thus disadvantaged against the ancient European army, but the Qin army would have a huge advantage in ranged warfare. My conclusion: the Qin ranged units would have the training and technology to significantly weaken and shrink Alexander's melee and ranged units, then the Qin army would send in its melee units for the finishing attack.

I know battles are rarely typical and fair, but I don't want to deal with realistic/unfair details, because anything could happen in realistic/unfair battles (i.e., 50,000 men in Alexander's army vs. 200,000 men in the Qin army, or the Qin army making a exhausting travel from East Asia, Central Asia, and the Middle East to attack Alexander's waiting army, or Alexander's army attacking the Qin army during the Qin Dynasty's downfall, or the Qin army attacking Alexander's army during Alexander's downfall). If you want to be very realistic, then you can't argue about Qin vs. Alexander the Great, because it NEVER happened. They were too far from each other. I am only dealing with a simple, fair hypothetical situation.

I based my opinion on various books on the Qin army, ancient Chinese militaries, Alexander the Great, and ancient European armies.


---------------------------------------------------------------------

This isn't about ancient China, Alexander the Great, or ancient Europe, but it's an interesting battle and I don't know where to put it.



The Battle of Nicopolis in 1396 AD is an interesting medieval battle involving European forces and the Ottoman Empire. The battle is interesting because of multiple reasons or because of the unpredictablity of warfare.

1. Some historical accounts were very unreliable about the size of the opposing sides. Writers from Team A wrote that Team A was greatly outnumbered by Team B, which is why Team A lost. Writers from Team B wrote that Team B was greatly outnumbered, and still came out victorious. This was only one example out of many of medieval writers exaggerating the size of armies. The writers lied for various motives: they decided it was better to state a number rather than admit their lack of knowledge, they wanted to make their own army look better whether in victory or defeat, and they wanted to make things look greater than reality (drama).

2. The warring factions were not just fighting against each other, but other enemies. The Crusaders were waging war against non-Christian Europeans and against Middle Easterners independet of the Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman Empire was waging war against non-Muslim Middle-Easterners and other Muslism civilizations. King Timur even got into the mix. In a way, everything seemed unpredictable.

Timur successfully attacked the Persian Empire and the Ottoman Empire. Timur built a dam to cut off the water supply of the Ottoman Empire's army, then Timur primarily used mounted archers with good feints combined with hit-and-run. The mounted archers were backed by mounted melee. Timur lead a decisive victory over the Ottoman Empire's army. The Ottoman Empire was devastated, and had to minimize their attacks on Europe, because of this major loss, the capture of the Ottoman Empire's Sultan by Timur, and the later ravaging of the Ottoman Empire by Timur's victorious army. Timur seemed to avoid going after the area currently called Saudi Arabia and Egypt, because Timur wasn't mobile enough. Timur had a highly mobile army, but his army still had limitations.

Timur then decided to conquer China (China had , but he met unexpectedly difficult weathers, and died during the trip. After Timur's death, his army and empire was never the same again.

3. The European army and the Ottoman Empire army made major blunders that cost them many men. The European army made a single blunder that cost them the entire war (IMO). The European army chased retreating Ottoman Empire soldiers up a hill without properly scouting or pacing themselves, and were suprised, then devastated by a counter-attack from hidden soldiers of the Ottoman Empire. I noticed this is a recurring theme in history for all civilizations. If an army is winning or fighting to a draw, the army could suddenly make a major mistake or suddenly fail to defeat a counter-attack, and lose the whole war.

4. Both sides used melee as the primary weapon, and ranged weapons as a secondary option. For ranged warfare, the European army used crude cannons and archers, and the Ottoman Empire's army used archers. The ranged units on both sides were successful in injuring or killing significant numbers of enemy units. However, the ranged units were only used to soften the enemy. The melee units were the focus and main means to defeat the enemy. The best melee units were mounted. Both sides had a lot more melee units than ranged units according to my best estimates from various sources.

5. Both sides were completely vicious towards prisoners of war, but they were also kind to a few prisoners of war. One moment an army is torturing, humiliating, and slaughtering prisoners, and the next moment the army is releasing the prisoners and helping them return home.

6. The European army focused more on offense, while the Ottoman Empire's army focused more on defense. Both sides pretty much went right at each other: encirclements were mostly tactical as oppose to strategic, and charges and retreats were more like all-or-nothing tactics and strategies, as oppose to repeated usage of tactical retreats and strategic retreats to test the enemy, gradually gain advantages, and to slowly, but safely win the war.

7. Even though the Ottoman Empire won this battle, both sides suffered large casualties. The Ottoman Empire was facing threats from multiple directions against multiple enemies, especially Timur's army. The battle didn't strengthen the Europeans or the Ottoman Empire. So much effort into something trivial.

8. When both armies returned home, they were robbed by the locals they met along the way. I don't know how true this is, because I thought the armies had noble and military ranks, which protected them against locals. The armies still had weapons. Maybe they were too tired and outnumbered to protect against criminals and peasants desperate for wealth.

Most "Fair battles" tend to be won by luck, which is why any sane strategist would attempt to totally avoid it.

Mightypeon said:

Most "Fair battles" tend to be won by luck, which is why any sane strategist would attempt to totally avoid it.

Click to expand...

Actually, I would disagreed with your statement (sorry about that). Of course there are alot of 'luck' elements involved. But any good strategist must also have the ability to 'see' this luck and make use of it. And many things that are seemingly luck are actually science. Strategist don't just take into consideration of the following,

1) Number of soldiers for both side
2) Type of weapons they have
3) Training of their soldiers and their soldiers capability
4) Morale of the soldiers

Good strategists or tacticians also take into consideration of the following,

1) Geography (type of terrain, weathers, locals population, etc)
2) Where his army came from, where enemy's army came from
3) general public support
4) who is enemy's marshals, what is his track record, and what type of tactics he like to use.
5) supports from back home (include home population, logistical support, material support, etc)

Many a time, when it seemed like luck is playing a part, it is actually science. Like in the case of the Chibi battle, it seemed like Zhou's army is in luck when Zhuge Liang call in the east wind to aid them. Many would argue that that is luck and not Zhuge Liang actual credit. But I would tend to believe that that is actually science. Zhuge Liang might already know (from his observation in the cloud, the water flow and the fish or animals movement, the wetness in the wind, etc) that there is going to be an east wind blowing soon. So actually it is all science.

Infra_Man99 said:

Vesicles, thanks for the information.


Here's my summary of Qin vs Alexander the Great . . .

I am going to choose a fair battle, which means the two sides have ZERO huge advantages in strategy, tactics, government, economy, technology, culture, religion, quantity, experience, training, and allies. If you argue about unfair battles, then the army with the most advantages obviously has the edge over the other army. I know the best army will pick a battle that completely favors itself, but, like I said, I am talking about a FAIR battle.

Qin army favored both melee and ranged units. The Qin army used lots of melee or lots of ranged units or a balanced mixture (~1:1 ratio) of melee and ranged units depending on the enemy. The Qin army favored using its ranged units whenever possible. The Qin army had a greater variety of bows and crossbows, superior arrows and bolts, and superior bows and crossbows than Alexander's army and other ancient European armies.

Both the Qin army and ancient European armies had a variety of melee weapons.

Alexander and most ancient European armies favored melee a lot more than ranged units. A typical army had 75% to 90% melee units with 25% to 10% ranged units.

In this fair battle with both sides having 100,000 soldiers, I think the Qin melee would be outnumbered by Alexander's melee, but the Qin ranged units would outnumber Alexander's ranged units. Then Qin army would PROBABLY have around 50,000 melee and around 50,000 ranged units, while the ancient European army would PROBABLY have 80,000 melee and 20,000 ranged units. The Qin melee would be significantly outnumbered, thus disadvantaged against the ancient European army, but the Qin army would have a huge advantage in ranged warfare. My conclusion: the Qin ranged units would have the training and technology to significantly weaken and shrink Alexander's melee and ranged units, then the Qin army would send in its melee units for the finishing attack.

I know battles are rarely typical and fair, but I don't want to deal with realistic/unfair details, because anything could happen in realistic/unfair battles (i.e., 50,000 men in Alexander's army vs. 200,000 men in the Qin army, or the Qin army making a exhausting travel from East Asia, Central Asia, and the Middle East to attack Alexander's waiting army, or Alexander's army attacking the Qin army during the Qin Dynasty's downfall, or the Qin army attacking Alexander's army during Alexander's downfall). If you want to be very realistic, then you can't argue about Qin vs. Alexander the Great, because it NEVER happened. They were too far from each other. I am only dealing with a simple, fair hypothetical situation.

I based my opinion on various books on the Qin army, ancient Chinese militaries, Alexander the Great, and ancient European armies.

Click to expand...

I've been away from this thread for a long time but...

1. European armor was heavier and would be getting shot at by warheads designed to fight lighter armors. One reason the Hellenic armies used less missiles troops is missiles were less effective vs the armor they wore. The mixed Phalangalist and Hoplite formations were very resistant to missiles as the Persians found out over and over again. At the battle of Gaugamela the Macedonians were outnumbered 2 or 3:1.

2. Chinese melee troops were not as well trained, the Macedonians and Hoplites were veteran warriors, not conscripts.

3. The sarrissa or pike gave the Hellenes an absolute advantage in melee. You specified a fair battle with no advantages. When able to fight on decent terrain the Phalanx could and did but up the Roman legions. Lighter forces almost always got chewed up and spit out. Notable exceptions occurred when a flank got turned.

4. Equal numbers favor the Hellenes based on 1-3.

5. Chinese efforts need to be focused on A- not having an equal battlefield and B winning the cavalry battle, C- having 3x the numbers.

6. Macedonian cavalry (Companions) were uber-elite the only force oin the world at the time able to use shock tactics- but small. Other Greek cavalry was good, but nothing special.

I don't see how the pike gives the Hellenes the advantage. Read more about the Qin Army. Discoveries on the Terra Cotta army indicate they're using long pikes.

You know little about the Qin soldier. They're not your typical farm boy, and nor is the Qin Army your typical Chinese warlord army. This is a battle hardened and blood thirsty group. The ambition for battle, extreme discipline, ferocity and blood thirstiness---meaning basically how loose the screw is on their heads---can be compared to one other group in the Ancient World, the Spartans. What can you talk about a military culture that is literally a decapitating machine. Armies melt away in terror of the Qin's reputation. They chop and collect heads as a way to measure casualties, including the wounded, civilians, and even their own wounded if they can get away with it. Counting heads, literally, provides a verifiable record of your kills, and there is a system of merit that rewards for based on how many heads you have collected.

The Warring States period is a tumultuous time for proto-China, and much like the Greek civil wars, left people, soldiers and leadership seriously battle hardened.

crobato said:

I don't see how the pike gives the Hellenes the advantage. Read more about the Qin Army. Discoveries on the Terra Cotta army indicate they're using long pikes.

Click to expand...

No it doesn't, it indicates the use of spears not pikes.


1. The Hellenes used pikes in a very specific manner, to push other armies. The Terra Cotta army lacked shields. So while the valiant Qin troops were trying to stick their spears into Hellenic bronze shields, the Greeks and Macedonians would be sticking their even longer sarrisa into Chinese flesh.

2. The length of the swords indicates a loose order battle drill. Not the4 highly regimented style used by the Greek world.

You know little about the Qin soldier. They're not your typical farm boy, and nor is the Qin Army your typical Chinese warlord army. This is a battle hardened and blood thirsty group. The ambition for battle, extreme discipline, ferocity and blood thirstiness---meaning basically how loose the screw is on their heads---can be compared to one other group in the Ancient World, the Spartans.[/quote]

You know so very little about the Greeks. Ruthlessness does not an elite make. The Spartans used terror vs the Helots, but they were more than simply ruthless. ripped away from thier mom at age 7 they were put into a 9 year meat grinder where failure meant death or demotion to the Helot class (where the helots would kill them). They were underfed and forced to steal, learned field craft and had any trace of softness rubbed out of them. During this time they were also systematically abused by older warriors. The only person they could turn to would be thier mentor who may or may not be kind and may or may not like taking them in the butt. Once they were 16 the pressure got worse. Now they were old enough to be accepted into a mess and begin informal dating- if they got accepted into a mess. If they failed to get accepted into a mess by age 20 they were demoted to Helot status. It would not be until they were 27 that they could claim the title of Lacadonian (Spartiate) and marry. By age 27 when they could marry they had already been in the military for 20 years.

Granted this was extreme, but Athenian hoplites also had a lot of time to train. With metics and slaves running the business of the city, the hoplites had time to train and fight.

In Macedonia Phillip II transformed the military and made it professional. 3 major points stand out 1 the Companions. This young royals were kept with the crown prince and raised with him and educated with him. This is the one group that probably had as many years in uniform as the Spartans although the training was not as rough and stressed different skills. 2. Engineers- Phillip kept a large expensive and very professional corps of engineers. Alexander's engineers were the best in the world for the era. 3. The Phalanx, the greek model used a formation 10 wide and 3-5 deep. Phillip went with a 10x 10 formation so that on the march a simple command could put the same amount of combat power in any direction regardless of where the enemy appeared from. He also lengthened the Greek spear to a true pike 18-22' long. In a pushing battle 10 men pushing trumps 3-5 and Phillip crushed Thebes and then the rest of Greece. Alexander would follow suit.

What can you talk about a military culture that is literally a decapitating machine. Armies melt away in terror of the Qin's reputation. They chop and collect heads as a way to measure casualties, including the wounded, civilians, and even their own wounded if they can get away with it. Counting heads, literally, provides a verifiable record of your kills, and there is a system of merit that rewards for based on how many heads you have collected.

Click to expand...

Says zero about how well they fought. That they fought better than the other Chinese armies is a given. But lacking shields and with weapons set up for loose order its entirely likely they would have folded like a wet sack vs a Phalanx unless other factors were in play. All stacks of heads tell us is that is was a bad thing to lose to them and be in the area POST-battle.