Alexander VS Qin dynasty

zraver

Junior Member
VIP Professional
zraver:

1. I'd like to see some evidence that Alexander had missile troops with superior range and penetrating power than the Qin crossbowmen. (Good luck with that!)

Of course, since your convinced of the superiority of crossbows, then no evidence will suffice. Even the rather overrated English longbow could out range late medieval crossbows that used iron bows.

2. You're confusing formation with organization. A loose-formation infantry isn't disorganized, they just stand further apart.

The further apart the less control= disorganized. Commands only carry so far to make up the difference you need more leaders or flags and the whole process gets slowed down.

In fact, your example of race cars vs traffic jam proves my point: the race cars are certainly further apart from each other than cars in a traffic jam. But then again, maybe it just demonstrates your confusion of formation vs organization.

Use youtube look up drafting.

3. Are you actually, honest-to-god, claiming that combined forces in a bad thing???

No I said mixed units is a bad thing, learn the difference.

Maybe you should actually read up on Alexander, and how he *really* used your vaunted sarissa phalanxes.

I am well aware
FYI, the Greeks got slaughtered when they started concentrating on pure phalanxes and eschewing the combined arms approach.

But we are not talking about a pure phalanx.

4. Are you seriously trying to claim that Qin soldiers didn't have access to helmets and shields?

No I am saying the terracotta army can't say to opposing things at the same time. If they had helms or sheilds provide the proof.

Crossbowmen and riflemen use firing line tactics because it's not about the number of bolts loosed, but the concentration of firepower. A charging phalanx will inevitably be slowed as its front ranks fall from a crossbow barrage. The rotating firing line ensures that the enemy will receive a nigh constant barrage of bolts.

Your bad at math that much is obvious. The ultimate rate of fire determines the effectiveness. No matter how you set your crossbow up the slow rate of fire is going to limit the effectiveness.

In a real battle scenario, there's no way Alexander would be dumb enough to charge his phalanx against 3 lines of Qin Crossbowmen, unless he really has no clue what crossbows were capable of. Unfortunately for Alexander, whatever else he has, the Qin probably had better: swordsmen, cavalry, archers, you name it.

Obvious fanboi I see. Alexander used his Phalanx to turn back elephants and crushed dozens of missile based armies.
 

solarz

Brigadier
ROFL... The guy who's claiming that Alexander had equal or better bows as the English longbow, who claims that Qin armies don't wear helmets and use shields, who thinks that loose formation = disorganization is calling me a fanboi?

The Terra Cotta army can be in whatever formation the original artists damn well please. What's so hard to grasp about the fact that they're in battle formation but wearing parade attire?

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!



You're also contradicting yourself. Here's what you said early on:
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.

When it was pointed out that the Persians had nothing like the Qin crossbows, which would very likely punch through Macedonian bronze armor with ease, you started ranting about the slow firing rate of crossbows and how archers were more effective because they could shoot more arrows.
 
Last edited:

zraver

Junior Member
VIP Professional
ROFL... The guy who's claiming that Alexander had equal or better bows as the English longbow, who claims that Qin armies don't wear helmets and use shields, who thinks that loose formation = disorganization is calling me a fanboi?

I merely pointed out that the long bow is overrated. Most hornbows out perform it with ease.

The Terra Cotta army can be in whatever formation the original artists damn well please. What's so hard to grasp about the fact that they're in battle formation but wearing parade attire?

If its a parade formation, it can't be used as an example of how close they fight. If its a battle formation you can add equipment to it that they do not have.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Had not seen those helms before. Not much face protection. This tells us the Qin were not engaging in pushing battles. When someone is jabbing pikes at you, you want better face protection. The helms also lack ear holes. This means once battle is joined control is over. There goes your cliams of discipline. One reason the Greek Corinthian style helmet fell out of use was the lack of hearing. By the time of Alexander new helms had replaced them that afforded much better hearing.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Care yo explain how you use that funny shape to tuck up next to the guy on your left for a pushing battle?

In review- helms with no face protection and poor hearing, long swords, and non-tuckable individual use shields= no way its going mano eh mano vs a sarrissa equipped Phalanx. The Roman's secret to breaking the Macedonians was locking the pikes on Roman shields (Scutum) and then leveraging the Phalanx apart so the Legionaries could dash in with the Gladius. The Chinese infantry as presented in this thread is not set up to fight it.


You're also contradicting yourself. Here's what you said early on:


When it was pointed out that the Persians had nothing like the Qin crossbows, which would very likely punch through Macedonian bronze armor with ease, you started ranting about the slow firing rate of crossbows and how archers were more effective because they could shoot more arrows.

No, I said the effectiveness of the cross bow would be less because of the type of arrow heads vs the type of armor. That means the crossbowmen would have to be closer to be effective. The inability to do plunging fire and the slower rate of fire overall are related but separate points. The bow in the hands of an experienced bowman is the superior weapon in war. Its just a lot harder and more expensive to use bowmen. Conscript armies used crossbows because they could be mass produced just like the conscripts.
 

solarz

Brigadier
LMAO.... what's your obsession with "push battles"? It's like you can't even conceive of another way of fighting.

Here are the three definite advantages of Qin over Alexander:

1- Qin crossbowmen can cut bloody swathes into Macedonian phalanx from 150 yards away.

2- Qin cavalry is in general better equipped and more numerous than Macedonian cavalry.

3- Qin can easily raise armies as well trained and seasoned as Alexander's, but 10 times as numerous.

Even if we go with a "fair battle" and ignore #3, the first two advantages alone are enough to put Alexander in a bad position.
 

zraver

Junior Member
VIP Professional
LMAO.... what's your obsession with "push battles"? It's like you can't even conceive of another way of fighting.

In ancient infantry battles heavy infantry fighting in the phalanx style was supreme until the advent of the legions. It beat every other type of army it encountered.

Here are the three definite advantages of Qin over Alexander:

1- Qin crossbowmen can cut bloody swathes into Macedonian phalanx from 150 yards away.

Now what to do about those pesky Greeks firing from 300+ yards away and firing much more rapidly. Talk about bloody swaths.

2- Qin cavalry is in general better equipped and more numerous than Macedonian cavalry.

More numerous probably, better equipped is fanboi speak. Alexander's companions where the only shock cavalry in the world. No one had the stirrup. and everyones was for the most part supporting arm.

3- Qin can easily raise armies as well trained and seasoned as Alexander's, but 10 times as numerous.

more fanboi speak. Alexander's army was at its base his father's army and the Greeks that had first opposed Thebes and Athens starting in 359. By the time Alexander took over just about everyman in the army had seen combat. They were professionals not conscripts or levies.

Even if we go with a "fair battle" and ignore #3, the first two advantages alone are enough to put Alexander in a bad position.

Only if you ignore the facts.
 

solarz

Brigadier
In ancient infantry battles heavy infantry fighting in the phalanx style was supreme until the advent of the legions. It beat every other type of army it encountered.

Did the greek phalanxes ever encounter armies armed with heavy firepower? On the other hand, history has shown that infantry without enough cavalry support tend to get massacred by powerful ranged troops. (i.e. English vs Scots)

Now what to do about those pesky Greeks firing from 300+ yards away and firing much more rapidly. Talk about bloody swaths.

I'm sorry, but are you suggesting that the Greeks would be firing volleys while their phalanxes are charging???

It's not as if the Qin didn't have archers of their own, you know. Just how much did Alexander use archers anyway?

more fanboi speak. Alexander's army was at its base his father's army and the Greeks that had first opposed Thebes and Athens starting in 359. By the time Alexander took over just about everyman in the army had seen combat. They were professionals not conscripts or levies.

Right... I've got four words for you: Warring States, 300 years.

(Okay, technically, that's 3 words and a number.)


Only if you ignore the facts.

ROFL... that's really ironic, coming from you.
 

zraver

Junior Member
VIP Professional
Did the greek phalanxes ever encounter armies armed with heavy firepower?

No, the Persians, Greeks, Bactrians, and Indians used spitwads.


On the other hand, history has shown that infantry without enough cavalry support tend to get massacred by powerful ranged troops. (i.e. English vs Scots)

Check out the battles of Crecy and Agincourt.

I'm sorry, but are you suggesting that the Greeks would be firing volleys while their phalanxes are charging???

Actually the light troops moved in front of the phalanx till the last minute and then moved to the sides and rear. And as I pointed out archers can use plunging fire.

It's not as if the Qin didn't have archers of their own, you know. Just how much did Alexander use archers anyway?

About 1 in 4 ground troops was a light fighter. Most were peltast but if 1 in 4 to 1 in 6 was an archer then by the Battle of Gaugamela her would have had about 1200-1800 archers if he kept the same troops. However he was probably using a number of Persian troops by this point and so the number of archers could be much higher.

Right... I've got four words for you: Warring States, 300 years.

(Okay, technically, that's 3 words and a number.)

So the ancient Chinese lived for 300 years? Actually if you look at the time table the final Qin assault lasted 9 years.
 

solarz

Brigadier
No, the Persians, Greeks, Bactrians, and Indians used spitwads.

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.

Your argument went something like this:

- Macedonian armor was resistant to Persian bows.
- Persian bows can fire faster than Qin crossbows.
- Thus Macedonian phalanx > Qin crossbowmen.


Check out the battles of Crecy and Agincourt.

Yes, those are battles where missile troops defeated heavily armored cavalry units. How does that counter my argument that Qin crossbows would slaughter Alexander's phalanx?

Actually the light troops moved in front of the phalanx till the last minute and then moved to the sides and rear. And as I pointed out archers can use plunging fire.

About 1 in 4 ground troops was a light fighter. Most were peltast but if 1 in 4 to 1 in 6 was an archer then by the Battle of Gaugamela her would have had about 1200-1800 archers if he kept the same troops. However he was probably using a number of Persian troops by this point and so the number of archers could be much higher.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

(So much for your 300 yard archers idea!)

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


I imagine that's the maximum possible range. Even if the killing range was a fraction of that, that's still some 200-300m!


So the ancient Chinese lived for 300 years? Actually if you look at the time table the final Qin assault lasted 9 years.

I see you're just running out of arguments and resorting to absurdities now. Go ahead, don't let the facts stop you.
 

zraver

Junior Member
VIP Professional
Your argument went something like this:

- Macedonian armor was resistant to Persian bows.
- Persian bows can fire faster than Qin crossbows.
- Thus Macedonian phalanx > Qin crossbowmen.

No my argument went like this

heavier Macedonian armor, and sheilds allow the Phalanx to get closer before the crossbow are effective. Closer range + slow rate of fire means the crossbow can't break the phalanx before it impacts (specially with light troops and archers between the crossbow and phalanx) so when the phalanx hits its intact and will stick the Qin infantry like bugs.

Yes, those are battles where missile troops defeated heavily armored cavalry units. How does that counter my argument that Qin crossbows would slaughter Alexander's phalanx?

I've defeated that argument again and again. The crossbows have a very slow rate of fire.



Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

(So much for your 300 yard archers idea!)

Don't confuse terrain with range. There was an inscription found on a Greek tomb claiming a bow shot over 521m.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

It might be capable of that far on a perfect parabolic shot but I doubt it. However that is not its useful range. The crossbow is a direct fire weapon. when the trigger pulls it releases all the force. You can't adjust the draw to the needs of the situation- all or nothing.

Your source also described much lighter armor and arrowheads designed to defeat that armor not heavy armors....

I imagine that's the maximum possible range. Even if the killing range was a fraction of that, that's still some 200-300m!

Range probably doesn't exceed 100-150m when used in the direct fire role by a conscript. Going back to the European model you brought up- volley density was needed because accuracy (and rate of fire) sucked. The Brown Bess helped the British build the biggest empire in history and it was near worthless past 100m.




I see you're just running out of arguments and resorting to absurdities now. Go ahead, don't let the facts stop you.[/QUOTE]
 

rhino123

Pencil Pusher
VIP Professional
Actually we do not really know who would win a battle by just looking at the crossbow versus pikes debate... there is just a few things that I would like to point out... that are the similarity of the Qin army to the Marcelon Army,

1) Both of them have very strong and tight military formation (yes, Qin army too, if you study the teracotta army).
2) Both utilise combine arm tactics.
3) Both armies are highly developed and experienced (in the history channel, I watched, the Qin Army prior to attacking and conquering the rest of china, actually had 200 years of constant war against northern tribes. And so they actually developed very powerful military and fighting skills throughout the generations)
4) Commanders of Qin Army and Marcelon Army were people that could adapt to their surrounding very fast and quick. The Qin rulers often trust and use tactics and advises from foreign talents such as Bai Qi, while King Phillip II actually spent time as prisoner to the Greeks and learned their tactics from there on.
5) Both Armies utilise and realise the need for cavalries.

An explanation to Qin's missile troop:

As oppose to many people's conception that Qin Army are focus only on crossbow for their ranged attack, well... they are wrong, a look into the Teracotta army formation, Qin Army utilise huge number of archer too - both Bow and Crossbow had different usage though. Bow normally used for indirect military support, firing over the sky and not aiming directly at singular opponent. Crossbows were used for direct support, firing more or less in straight line. True, crossbows had slower rate of fire that is why special tactics had been developed to improve its firing rate. And it is quite successful.

There are good points for crossbows... one of them was it was more accurate then composite bow of that era. The Qin's crossbow even came with very modern targeting system such as targeting scope.

Crossbows are easy to use and so the Qin could easily amass huge number of conscripts to fire their crossbows... little training is needed and it is effective.

And we understand that firing rate is low for crossbows... however if much more people are utilise to fire the crossbow, we might get the same number of arrows being fired in the battlefield.

However what Zaver said was also correct, Marcelon's palanx was a bane to most armies in the world... So when meeting headon, we must look into many aspects to determine whether Marcelon army would win over Qin Army.

We have to look into many aspect, which I am pretty sure was mentioned in this thread before. The only thing I could act is the industrial power of Qin... due to standardisation process and mass production of metal parts, would allow the Qin to build weapons in a much faster rate and quality to be controlled as compared to the Marcelon Army.
 
Top