Alexander and China

File: 5d8e15b042fff3a498bdcca015e5df8d.jpg (49KB, 463x600px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 463x600px

How big was Alexanders army? Because Qin and the various warring states could already mobilize large conscripted armies, but I guess this is not the main issue considering how Alexander was outnumbered most of the time.
However what is a big obstacle is the crossbow.
The Battle of Zhishi is a good example, either the crossbows defeated Roman shield formation, or they battled Hellenic troops like Alexanders and won a complete victory with no reported loses.

>>2916638
Not OP, but Alexander's forces would probably be around 50K.

I don't see how they will be able to beat Qin in any way. Qin of the time were notoriously ruthless and cunning. Exploitation of enemy through duplicity was their forte. Not to mention they easily have more than 3X the number of soldiers. Link related, one of the battle that took place around same time period. 120K vs 240K

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Yique

Qin also has extremely capable generals, strategists, and advisers for its time period. As they were a legalist state (relied on rule of law and fairness) they enjoyed strong support from public.

File: warring states.webm (85KB, 300x320px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 300x320px

Here's how the warring states period played out. Roughly speaking.

>>2916435
But like he didn't drink himself to death. Those sources that imply that he did were from historian that hated him. When he doed he was becoming increasingly unpopular with his mostly Macedonian army for adopting Persian customs and even had to put down a couple of mutinies. He was more likely poisoned using on of the only slow acting poisons available during that time period. But yeah no he did live his drink but thats not what killed him.

>>2916638
Is it fair to call the crossbow the gun of antiquity?

>>2916435
Not good is the only real answer.

Numerical disadvantage, technological disadvantage, logistics disadvantage, terrain familiarity disadvantage, alliance disadvantage, etc.

Only advantage he might possibly have is well experienced and trained soldiers. However being that Qin and the states of the time had both effective conscription and professional army as well as experienced generals/strategists, his only advantage would be stretched thin.

File: Warring_States_or_Western_Han_crossbow.jpg (15KB, 432x324px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 432x324px

>>2916728
I would say more than fair.

>>2916435
Well, Alexander's army was already mutinying at the idea of going farther into India, but we can ignore that for now.

The biggest technological difference between the two is the crossbow. I'm not aware of Greek armies using crossbows at this time, while the Chinese used vast numbers of them. Anyone know anything on the matter?

>>2916728
>>2916732
Fuck, you guys beat me to it.

>>2916738
The Chinese were using cast iron, wroght iron, steel. Large factories of iron workers with blast irons were common in ancient china. I think there was a saying that goes something like "iron should be used only for war not petty stuff". Basically iron were mass produced on large scales for warfare purposes by the state during the warring states period. One such is obviously crossbows and swords and such.

Macedonians didn't have that technology. Cast iron in the west didn't become a thing until ~15th century.

I would say metallurgy was China's forte at the time, probably the most advanced iron/metal work of the period.

How popular were the Qin rulers with their people? IIRC the Qin dynasty was the shortest dynasty because everyone hated the tyrannical rule and the revolts got out of hand once the emperor died, did this apply to the Qin state before it conquered China?

>>2916770
Interesting, thanks Anon.

>>2916738
The Gastraphetes was around and used at Tyre, so they had crossbows, just not as good

>>2916775
For the most part they were popular, but then one of the emperors died, and different officials tried to make different sons kings and then everything went to shit.

>>2916787
Ah, thanks Anon.

>>2916638
>>2916653
>>2916731
>>2916738
>>2916770
OP here, so basically things would have been pretty bad for him in more or less every way, and India was pretty much the limit of where he realistically could have gotten anyway?

>>2916797
Fighting India would be similar to fighting China, similar yet different. India would be similar in China in terms of empire size but not warfare. Chinese were under few centuries into constant warfare. Meanwhile India wasn't such the case. There were few battles here and there, but not a large scale war like the ones taking place in China.

But you're right in assessment. Edge of India would be where Alexander's army would be halted.

>>2916797
Basically India is the final level, China is the postgame secret level but you're not allowed to heal up before being thrown into the secret level.

No chance of this ever happening OP his troops almost mutinied when he got to India and wanted to keep going. His army wasn't willing to go any further from home, and he was a shell of his younger self by the time he got there.

>>2916814
Even with fresh troops and conquering to borders of Qin by taking Tarim Basin, he would still not be breaching Qin anytime soon.

Level of warfare was on different scale all together.

>>2916819
>on different scale all together
In numbers?

>>2916829
Numbers weren't the issue for Alexander he was outnumbered in every battle against the Persians but a lot and still won

Even if Alexander got past the Qin, he would then be up against the Chu who were the Qin's main rival, and the Zhao who had adopted the horse archer cavalry tactics of the Xiongnu that the Greek phalanx would have been absolutely shattered by.

>>2916797
Yeah, India would have been his last conquest barring something weird.

You have to remember that one of the big reasons he conquered Persia with relative ease is that Persia was already collapsing. Egypt has basically broken away and become a separate country, other satraps were in revolt, and Darius III was an incompetent military leader.

India and China were getting stronger.

What is more believable is the idea that Alexander could have maybe, MAYBE, turned west and sought to conquer Arabia, Carthage, or Italy. I honestly don't know why he gave a fuck about Arabia (it's not like they knew what to do with oil). Italy was going through the Samnite Wars, and Carthage was at it's peak, so maybe Italy would have been the best target.

Link related, Carthage every year.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-wdrIFfIOA

>>2916829
And technology.

>>2916834
Yeah but Darius III was an idiot. Compare Alexander's performance in Persia to that in India. I'm not saying Alexander wasn't a great commander, but the poor Persian performance compared to the relatively strong Indian showing is telling.

>>2916834
>>2916829
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Maling
600K vs 300K
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Yique
120K vs 240K
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Changping
450K vs 550K


Greeks mention Persian empire's 1M army battle vs 50K, but this number in modern is estimated around 50-100K. Greeks do have a history of exaggerating enemy numbers due to hero worship syndrome.

Something to note, Qin state also boasts the ability to field 1 million conscripts. Due to their recent reforms that took place few decades ago.

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bai_Qi
This Qin general is supposed to be responsible for death of >1M people.

While we can't be certain of the 1M claims, the other numbers seem to be right around the fairly accurate ballpark in terms of level of complexity China was developing into at this time period.

>>2916869
Is there reason to take the Chinese numbers as trustworthy when the Greek numbers are known to be exaggerated?

>>2916871
Tax records and historical numbers are officially written down and kept throughout the dynasties.

The numbers are also fairly consistent throughout the Chinese histories, so even if few upper bounds may be inaccurate/lies, the average number should be fairly accurate. This is why I called the 1M numbers into question as these numbers are bit above the normal Chinese army size throughout history.

>>2916885
To add to this, the Qin of ~320 BCE would have something similar to a universal conscription for all males > 15. I think this was due to the Shang Yang reform that Qin underwent. This quickly made them into a powerhouse in the region.

Its sorta like the Selective Service of the US. Where every male @ 18 are required to register.

>>2916435
>Drunk himself to death
t. Cassander
we have no idea whether he died from poison, alcohol, malaria, a complication with his lung etc.
>>2916653
Alexander's army reached 120k during his Indian campaigns according to his admlral, Nerachus.
>>2916849
>India and China were getting stronger.
yes and no. India as a whole might have been, but the Nanda Empire that dominated it was a decaying husk that was overthrown just 20 years after Alexander reached India's border.

>>2916869
>those numbers

I'm always super curious out how these armies worked. Like, that is a crazily stupid amount of people. How did they march? How were enough supplies mustered to keep them feed, you can't forage at that size.
The number of troops at Leipzig number less than that, despite vastly superior organisational structures and the numbers coming from many different armies (with separate supply structures).
How did a single commander direct this shit pre-radio? Napoleon was already struggling with the dizzying heights armies reached during the 1810s, despite the advantages of the corp system.

>>2916638
>Crossbows
Alexander had Siege Crossbows(Gastraphetes) from Syracuse in his army. The Diadochi and big A probably knew how to handle them. Don't forget that.

>Would the other Warring States band together with Alexander to defeat the Qin or just sit back and let them fight each other?

Alexander would do what he had done with persia: divide and and rule.
The proverb of Louis XI was widely used even in ancient times. While I do not realistically see any cahnce for Alexander to even make to China, let's say for the sake of the argument, that he shows up with his prime Macedonian army.

I see two things happen.
1.) All of China is fucking annoyed that yet another Barbarian enters the fray.
2.) At least one of the warring states gets obliterated by Alexander. the other two either make deals with Alexander or unite against him.

Either way, I don't see a feasable way for the Macedonians to hold a lasting position in China. There are just too many people, retarded amounts of resources for his enemies and little to way to meaningfully communicate with the greek homeland.

>>2916885
>>2916869

I'm not huge on Chinese history, but a number of generals, Origins of Political Order for instance, cite modern scholars as saying Chinese numbers were highly inflated.

They were still likely quite large, but they literally claim Verdun numbers in antiquity. It's akin to the Persian army being one million.

>>2916435
might as well ask what would have happened if he marched his men to the moon

Even if we let him start in the eastern most areas he conquered do you realize how hard it would be to get an army to China from there?

Until the 19th century whenever China is attacked it is from the Steppes to the north and there was a reason for that, because the country is damn difficult to approach from any other direction

>>2918800
Is the southern border (to Vietnam) so disadvantageus? I'd say it would be easier to take a foothold in Indochina and attack from there, rather than push an army through the Tarim basin

>>2916811
>>2916811
>large scale warfare
yeah, its not like the nandas expanded out of magadha a generation before Alexander's conquest or anything

>>2916671
>webm
Damn

>>2918828
Vietnam is not an easy place to take and move through, the climate in Indochina is way too tropical, disease would slaughter large armies

more over its populations are known for being quite hostile to invasion, while not quite impossible or a graveyard of empire like people see Afghanistan, its not as nice as say India itself

Its probably a preferable way to approach, considering the other is mountains/desert or attempting to fight through near endless steppe tribes but its still not a good approach

File: aristotle_4fm2.jpg (717KB, 1683x1728px) Image search: [Google]

717KB, 1683x1728px

>Let's imagine Alexander hadn't drunk himself to death and kept going east
Yeah, sure, he ''drunk'' himself to death.
The man who ate the and healthiest food, drank the cleanest water, had the best medicine and physicians by his side and was in peak physical and mental condition died of a little too much wine.
>Would the other Warring States band together with Alexander to defeat the Qin or just sit back and let them fight each other
Pretty much like >>2918740 put it

>>2918723
yeah, I was using "India" as a shorthand for "the Maurya empire"

>>2918745
The book was saying the number of deaths is unverifiable not the large army size. The >1M kills by that one qin general and other battles which supposedly killed >200k-500k

>>2916435
Thousands of years later you would get WEWUZ QINS and WEWUZ GREEKS posting here so probably not much would have changed

>>2916727
Gramps here. I've been reading Alex books for 45 years. This is most likely scenario.

>>2916843
He beat the original horse archers, the Scythians
.

>>2916727
To be fair, the culprit is less likely to be he army itself, which loved him, but rather Cassander and his brothers (possibly on orders from their father)

If Alexander ever made it to China it would be a one way trip. Much like Hannibal's crossing of the Alps, the vast majority of his veteran troops would be killed by attrition, and the campaign would mostly depend on his ability to recruit mercenaries from the various hill tribes. The invasion force would likely resemble the usual barbarians that stalked the periphery of Chinese civilization.

So it depends on Alexander doing something he hasn't yet had to do, which is inspire and successfully lead a highly diversified army, without the core of Hellenic troops that he has thus far depended on. It isn't going to be a faithful matchup of a classic Phillipian Macedonian army, if anything it would be much like the army of Atilla the Hun. Hannibal certainly was capable of this but he knew the underlying political rivalries and how to exploit them, and had a monolithic entity to rally against. Alexander has no such luxuries.

>>2916843
In his first battle against Horse Archers (battle of jaxartes) , Alexander outmaneuvered the nomadic force with light cavalry and infantry. It's also one of the first recorded uses of field artillery. While horse archers could prove troublesome, they were defeat several times by Alexander and his generals during the sogdian campaign (although Spitamenes wrecked some Macedonians hard)

>>2919322
Mohist of the warring states were already well aware of how to use traction trebuchet. They even have a manual on it it should be popular enough during the time.

They also have another large crossbow-type weapon for artillery, I forgot the name, but it was something corny I believe. It was also used during the warring states period.

Artillery is not unique. Warring states ~ 320 BCE would have transitioned towards heavy pike-axe infantry + crossbow infantry + heavy cavalry forces.

>>2919331
Only the Mohists?

>>2919343
Mohist manuals are the ones that survived. Single mohist student could spread it all across China.

Its not like any of the states would ignore the benefits of heavy machinery.

>>2919331
>traction trebuchet.
I don't know much about siege weapons, but at a glance it seems really primative and labor intensive compared to the torsion weapons the Greeks were using

>>2919373
Yea it does seem primitive, we don't really know its dimensions and projectile force, but I would assume it was effective enough and improved upon later enough that it was only later replaced by large muslim counter weight by the mongols.

>>2916732
How good were the crossbows of the Chinese at the time? How would it have compared to say the Scythian composite bow, or a maybe a medieval European crossbow from the 15th century?

>>2919456
Not sure, however Han dynasty crossbows can pierce Roman armor/Shield in the Battle of Zhizhi.

If we assume the power of the crossbows are roughly similar between the 300 years, they should be able to penetrate Greek armors/shields relatively easy. There is also the fact that Roman shield/armor improved over those 300 years too. So Greek shields/armor might be weaker.

>>2919483
>an pierce Roman armor/Shield in the Battle of Zhizhi.
>stating controversial and unverified theories as fact.
Nice one, Zhang

File: get-a-load-of-this-guy-dot-scroll-painting.jpg (30KB, 314x195px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 314x195px

>>2916638

>>2919568
There is nothing controversial about my post. I never said it was the Romans but rather Roman shields/armors. Given that the some small number of soldiers at Zhizhi were described as utilizing a unknown fish scale formation and used shields and tight formations, there is atleast the indication of armors and shields with Roman peculiarities.

Far as we know, it could just be mercenaries using Roman formation and shield or captive Roman soldiers under Parthian control. With tombs being found to contain european ancesterial people that averaged ~1.8 m tall. Either way, these group were related to Romans and utilizing similar formation/armors.

>>2918735
its just Chinese propaganda. You're in a chink shill thread. They have been known to straight up make up and change their history so its not crazy to assume its all bs.

>>2920077
>he writes as he fervently insists soviets photoshopped german war crimes

polniggers OUT

>>2919607
>no archaeological evidence
>no genetic evidence
>what little Indo-European influence is there was more likely to be carried by various Turks raping their way across the steppes

sorry mate, gonna have to go with "that story is bs" for $5

>>2916435
His logistics train would have collapsed before he was halfway trough India. It wouldn't be a matter of his army being weak but him not being able to field and feed enough of it to face even the smaller local rulers.

If the Chinese crossbow could punch through any infantry armor and shields then how did combat with crossbow-based armies work? Were they literally just running around the battlefield pouring masses of crossbow bolts into each other until they were all dead?

>>2920512
Crossbows weren't modern rifles that hit where you aimed them at and a charge by a large body of men could disperse your shit.

>>2916435
I sincerely doubt he would've been successful.

Qin China was massive, and Alexander's power base was in Persia.

>>2916435
Qin was a states that began from a small no name backwater almost pushed out of its existence and became a militarized and ruthless centralized state through Legalist reforms from the bottom up. If Alexander invaded at the height of its power while Qin Shihuang still lived Qin would stand a very good chance.

>>2920568
Qin Shi Huang was a few decades after Alexander, in Alexander's time the Qin were still rising

>>2920077
Kill yourself /pol/

You fuckers claimed the Shang Dynasty was fake as well. Now it is extensively proven.

China had 150-200 million people. That's a lot

>>2920568
The reformed happend sometime around ~370 BCE. By 320 BCE, Qin was a major force that engaged in more than half of all the battles fought since then.

By Qin Shin Huang era, Qin was largely the dominant force on earth.

>>2920630
>You fuckers claimed the Shang Dynasty was fake as well. Now it is extensively proven.
The Shang was proven in the early 20th century. I don't think /pol/ is that old.

>>2916853

He still fucked the poo in Loos tho

>>2920644
I'm exaggerating to make a point

This
>le chinese fake history meme
has been going on for centuries. Europeans and whites always try to prove other nations' histories are fake, while our's is "proven by science!"

Many western "educated" Chinese even believed the Shang were mythical.
Now we have evidence that the Xia existed in some form, although how "sinitic" it was is still unknown.

>>2920669
We have evidence that there was a society of peoples living in the Yellow River valley and that they left relics at Erlitou. We have no evidence that they were established by a sage king who ended the great flood and that they were the ones who would later be overthrown by the people that became the Shang after their last king built a lake of wine so he could have orgies while soldiers drowned in it.

>>2920669
There is a reason though. Chinese history is being written by the CCP and there's a political note when you read stuff by them.

The question of reliability of Chinese history claims will still be a question until CCP relaxes its hold on freedom of speech and education and politics. Until then, there'll always be suspicion on the CCP's narrative.

>>2920669
Xia is still mythical. All we know is that settled peoples were in China during the time the Xia supposedly existed.

>>2920705
Is this a fucking joke? You think the CCP wrote the Twenty-Four Histories?

>>2920630
>China had 150-200 million people. That's a lot
The late Warring States had a population of 20-40 million.

>>2920669
>Now we have evidence that the Xia existed in some form, although how "sinitic" it was is still unknown.
There isn't enough evidence Erlitou was the the Xia or whether they spoke Sinitic.

What is clear is Sinitic predates the late Shang period as well as genetic continuity from Erlitou-late Shang sites.

>>2916869
Those numbers are doubtlessly inflated aswell, I'd be surprised if they even involved half those numbers.

>>2921559
Keep in mind that Chinese records also liked to include non-combatant support staff in their army figures, which can easily double or triple the claimed size of an army.

>>2920077
Their records are still far trustworthy than your random make up shitposts. It's perfectly safe to assume shitposts without any proofs like yours are all bs.

>>2921449
The CCP can suppress any attempt to question the veracity of the traditional historical records.

>>2921449
The Communist Party has a political interest in twisting the historical narrative so as to show it progressing according to Marxist theory of class struggle i.e. Slave society > Feudal society > Capitalist society >Socialist society > Communist society.

Hence official Chinese histories are forced to pigeonhole the dynasties to fit Marxist historical theory - the Shang were a slave society, the Zhou to the Qing were a feudal society, the ROC were a capitalist society, and the PRC is a socialist state, all progressing scientifically through class struggle. This forcing of a Eurocentric view of history into a Chinese context is surely to be taken cautiously.

>>2921621
Modern military also includes staff agencies and logistics support.

If they are part of the military operations, then they are included.

>>2923486
>The CCP can suppress any attempt to question the veracity of the traditional historical records.
Utter nonsense. I suppose scholarly work arguing against the historicity of Sage-Kings,modern revisions of historical censuses or cross referencing archaeological finds with textual sources wouldn't exist if the PRC had these draconian policies.

>>2923486
So what does the formation of the 24 histories have to with the PRC?

Not to excuse the shoddiness of some mainland authors but there's definitely isn't a systemic attempt at enforcing Marxist historiography for Chinese history.

The worst you are going to get a "multi ethnic" narrative of Chinese history,association of modern ethnic groups with various polities/ethnicities that formed within the boundaries of the PRC and attempts at linking mythology with archaeological complexes. Many of the aforementioned pitfalls aren't limited to Chinese scholars and can be easily applied to Western Sinologists or other countries.

>>2923646
All texts pushed in China has to go through PRC ministry of truth.

This historical records printed as source will not have any texts/documents/pov/information that brings negative light to PRC.

Historical source from PRC China have that taint. Anyone not seeing is a PRC shillbot.

>>2923770
>All texts pushed in China has to go through PRC ministry of truth.
You are so fixated on PRC censorship that you don't seem to realize the 24 histories were promulgated far before the current regime ever held sway.

>This historical records printed as source will not have any texts/documents/pov/information that brings negative light to PRC.
That's nonsensical,why would historical texts from hundreds/thousands of years ago threaten the current regime?

>Historical source from PRC China have that taint. Anyone not seeing is a PRC shillbot.
We are talking about historical sources,not articles published since the PRC was founded(which I judge based on their content not their authors).

There are legitimate criticisms brought up against the veracity of numerical records detailing the Warring States(scribal error,second hand sources,conflation of civilian populations with soldiers).

It is ludicrous to assume the PRC would alter numerical inscriptions within historical texts just for the sake of the current regime. If such as thing were to happen you can always cross reference extant copies from other nations within the Sinosphere.

>>2923646
The 24 histories were written by newly established dynasties to chronicle the previous dynasty. Each one would have had a vested interest in legitimizing their ascendence, and the creation of a narrative of rise, peak, and decline to demonstrate the passing of heaven's mandate.

Perhaps, for example, the PRC's official historical narrative that the Kuomintang were dragging their feet and refusing to fight the Japanese and that it was really the CCP who resisted the invaders may only be the latest in this long history of new regimes twisting the record to denigrate their predecessors?

>>2923486
>>2923577
Do you guys even have any idea of what you are talking about? If what you are saying about modern CCP historiography being fitting history into the Marxist model is true, then modern CCP historiography is nothing but questioning and reinterpreting the canonical 24 histories. And if you hate modern CCP historiography so much, wouldn't you be arguing in favor of the 24 histories?

>>2923864
This is somewhat misleading. Shiji, Hanshu, Sanguozhi, and Houhanshu all started as private projects that received official sanction decades to centuries later. Even other official sponsored histories like Jinshu or Tangshu were often done centuries afterward due to intervening periods of instability, not by the immediate successor.

Basically the picture of the histories being done by their successors is due to the special case of Songshi, Yuanshi, and Mingshi being completed so quickly because the transitions between Song, Yuan, Ming, and Qing were relatively quick and the tradition of officially sponsored histories had been well esablished.

>>2923909
Questioning and doubting PRC narrative isn't "hating" PRC. However you seem too emotionally attached to this PRC issue, seems like your inner chinkshill is spilling out.

>>2923909
>tfw Duke Nukem Forever was finished before Qingshi

>>2923917
How many times do you have to be told that the Twenty Four Histories are not PRC Narrative? As stated above, if anything PRC narrative is ABOUT questioning and doubting the canonical Twenty Four.

>>2923909
Modern CCP historiography is questioning and examining it, but through the lens of Marxism, which may be even worse than taking it at face value.

>>2923864
>The 24 histories were written by newly established dynasties to chronicle the previous dynasty. Each one would have had a vested interest in legitimizing their ascendence, and the creation of a narrative of rise, peak, and decline to demonstrate the passing of heaven's mandate.
No shit. The dynastic histories are already derived from primary sources written by court bureaucrats,the compiler would be compelled to add his own interpretations and exaggerate the excesses of the previous dynasties.

For example,the Ming Shi's summary of the Imjin was of Armageddon. Fortunately,there are Ming primary sources that contradict these claims while there's a death of sources to cross reference with earlier histories.

>Perhaps, for example, the PRC's official historical narrative that the Kuomintang were dragging their feet and refusing to fight the Japanese and that it was really the CCP who resisted the invaders may only be the latest in this long history of new regimes twisting the record to denigrate their predecessors?
Seems to me you have an axe to grind rather than engaging in critical textual analysis.

The Chinese do not hold a monopoly on fabricating,distorting or excluding prior historical knowledge.

All sources are biased one way or another,unless you only want to rely on administrative records this is the best we got.

>>2923917
>Questioning and doubting PRC narrative isn't "hating" PRC.
This isn't a matter of PRC narrative.

This is a matter of Sima Qian's narrative and no amount of double standards will change this fact.

>>2923939
>>2923935
Twenty Four Histories as an idea isn't the issue, its the idea that's being revisited by PRC and reprinted with PRC slant that is the issue.

Slight noun choices, adjective choices, slight adverb choices to favor PRC's narrative of grand chinese history.

I can make the same argument about people not trusting Bible. People might say, they don't trust the bible because its been written and re-written by the church and the narratives are there to give lend to their agendas. Yet the bible defenders wills say, "how can you not trust the bible? its been in existence since before jesus christ" Fact is neither's existence matter when the people in control write the narrative. While most things maybe true, the angle at which its presented and the focus and attention given to certain factions will always be under the control of the PRC. Thus making it unreliable in anything specific.

>>2923989
>Slight noun choices, adjective choices, slight adverb choices
That's a world away from supposedly making up troop numbers to boost army sizes.

File: 04_alexander_greats_wounds[1].png (161KB, 400x1034px) Image search: [Google]

161KB, 400x1034px

>>2918923
>and was in peak physical and mental condition

Hardly, by the time he reached India he had already been seriously wounded a few times.

>>2924002
Is it? They could change the numbers to fit their bill? Who will contradict some it?

>>2924009
How about the original histories themselves? Even if you don't trust the PRC, the ROC has the same numbers.

>>2923989
>Twenty Four Histories as an idea isn't the issue, its the idea that's being revisited by PRC and reprinted with PRC slant that is the issue.
Then stop bitching and obtain an unedited Qing edition or a copy from overseas.

>Slight noun choices, adjective choices, slight adverb choices to favor PRC's narrative of grand chinese history.
Show me some examples instead of making up hypothetical scenarios.

>I can make the same argument about people not trusting Bible.
Show me evidence the 24 histories underwent constant revisions by later dynasties.

>>2924009
>Is it? They could change the numbers to fit their bill? Who will contradict some it?
As mentioned before the PRC transcriptions can be compared with dynastic editions or copies made in other countries.

This thread has divulged enough from this point of contention >>2916869

While I certainly don't take the numbers at face value there are factors such as universal conscription,overall population size and archaeological evidence(standardized weapons,extremely wide stamped roads etc.) that can be contrasted with logistical restraints,bureaucratic errors and outright fabrication.

>>2923989
But why do you inherently not trust the PRC for doing this. All societies do this, like India with Indo-Aryan migrations, and Western Europe about the importance of Rome/Greece. All societies, hell all people, are going to approach their own histories with a slant (Feminist History, Marxist History, etc.), if you think one is inherently more wrong than the other you're mistaken

>>2924009
>Who will contradict some it?
I'm sure Taiwan would have something to say.

>>2924029
India has a free and open democracy that allows anyone to publish work without needing to consult a ministry of truth division for censorship and approval. This applies to much of europe and Americas. The same cannot be said of PRC.

Hence the false equivalence doesn't work.

>>2924043
They have missiles pointed at them, they are currently being flooded with pro-PRC campaigns. Slight change in language and tone can set the PRC off, as it has in the past many times.

>>2924008
Tbh the only one that seemed to slow him down was the collapsed lung

>>2924045
>India has a free and open democracy that allows anyone to publish work without needing to consult a ministry of truth division for censorship and approval

Ho-boy, if you knew anything about India you'd realize being a "democracy" literally means jack shit about figuring out the truth. Pro-tip nationalism is much more important in influencing internal biases than government type.

>>2924070
Nationalism can work under democracies. See the US. Democracies however demand open and free speech. Which also coincidentally is necessary for truth.

>>2924078
Open and free speech is why the USA in particular and the Anglosphere in general is about the only place on Earth where a significant proportion of the population believes anthropomorthic climate change is a liberal powergrab and vaccines can overload the immune system to cause autism.

>>2924078
>>2924078
>implying US is a democracy

http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746

>>2924082
There can be multiple "truths" with democracies as there can be a greater public opinion and facts published by educated people., but in a non-democratic government, the truth does not exist. What exist is narratives not truth.

>>2924091
Have you not been paying attention to America today? Trump literally got elected by ignoring truths and pushing a false narrative. You're just using different synonyms for different government types because you're biased towards one and not the other

>>2924103
>>2924089
This thread isn't about current day America and American politics, so I can't entertain you PRC shills. Whataboutism really doesn't help your case.

The issue at stake is PRC credibility in regards to historical narratives published by them. It really has been settled for anyone outside the PRC influence or just retarded people who cannot afford to think.

>>2924113
But the PRC didn't write and publish the twenty four histories. Historians of the imperial era did.

>>2924113
Stop deflecting the point. You said narratives don't exist in democracies only "truths". And I pointed out your spewing bullshit, and your argument's false since your inherently biased against different government types

>>2924126
See Bible argument >>2923989

>>2924128
Are you ignoring the fact that any historical works that is published in PRC has to go through PRC ministry of truth? Its not biased to call out what this department functions as.

>>2924113
>The issue at stake is PRC credibility in regards to historical narratives published by them. It really has been settled for anyone outside the PRC influence or just retarded people who cannot afford to think.
The burden of proof is on you. You insist the numbers contained within the Shiji were concocted by the PRC.

Here's a Qianlong era edition of Shiji.
http://ctext.org/library.pl?if=en&res=77688

Now tell me where does the text deviate from modern copies of the Shiji?

>>2924136
And all historical works of note have to go through Academia and go through journals, which also push their own narrative. Do you think Ivory tower liberals represent objective truth? Have you ever met Anthropologists and Sociologists? Powerful people have agendas, it's not something exclusive to authoritarian systems

>>2924146
>independent journals and academias are same as government mandated agenda
Again false equivalent.

>>2924136
Are you seriously comparing hundreds of volumes of official researched and cross referenced bureaucratic historical records to a collection of desert folk tales and apocryphal accounts written by random Christians?

>ministry of truth
The PRC can control how modern writers choose to interpret the histories. It can't go back and rewrite the histories themselves.

>>2916812
>Alexander's armies form up
>Qin form against his
>New Objective
>SURVIVE
>SweatingAlexander.jpg

File: 1418950399744.gif (286KB, 123x116px) Image search: [Google]

286KB, 123x116px

>>2916435
>half of this thread is about PRC

nice job, CIDF

>>2924151
Modern PRC writers write rewrite and reprint the Historical books.

Its not like third parties ca write extensive Chinese historical documents. The ones that do, do with the blessing of PRC.

>>2924150
There is no difference, that's what I'm getting at. Supposedly indepedent academics push their agenda and censor apposing viewpoints just as government mandated agendas do. Just look at the Bipartisan consensus on regards to Israel. You don't need to be in an authoritarian government in order to sensor :incorrect" viewpoints

>>2924141
I insisted that whatever numbers published cannot be trusted because there is no level of authenticity due to PRC's direct and indirect control over all levels of texts.

If there is only one view present and that view is controlled by PRC agenda, how is anyone to trust it? That's the problem. There needs no proof to see this as a huge credibility problem.

Alexander would have stumbled into China during the warring states period. He would have forged alliances with one or more faction as he did in India (probably starting with the Qin) and marched as their leader until he dropped dead or conquered everything out to the pacific. His reputation would have run ahead of him like a thunderclap, and any warlord that could have made a truce with him would have done so quickly.

India would have been a relatively simple matter if his troops hadn't lost their morale trudging through the monsoons. There also wasn't much worth capturing in India, which cannot be said for China at that time.

Marching that far east would have been unheard of for any Greek however, and the cumulative toll of disease, malnutrition, age, combat and so on would probably have shortened Alexander's lifespan significantly. But, if the march doesn't end in India, he never gets that fatal wound fighting the Malloi, and it is likely Hephaestion doesn't die either, which means both Alexander's mind and body remain in top form.

>>2924161
You do know that independent humans have different goals in mind right?

Where as the goal of a single country with all powerful censorship department only has one.

That's too much to assume I suppose given the level of brainwashing you guys went through.

>>2924008

he healed better and quicker than any person in recorded history. that punctured lung would likely have killed a healthy person in 2017 even with modern medical intervention. if he keeps marching east he never gets the lung injury to begin with

>>2924157
>write rewrite
They literally do not do this retard. You can read and compare them with Qing dynasty printings. There is no translation process like the bible where they can pick and choose things to change or reinterpret. The Histories as they exist now are the histories as they have existed for hundreds of years, what changes is how modem writings use them as sources.

File: Kung Poo.webm (3MB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 480x480px

Chinks are master race, that greek cuck can't defeat them.

>>2924164
>I insisted that whatever numbers published cannot be trusted because there is no level of authenticity due to PRC's direct and indirect control over all levels of texts.
Bullshit. Why would the PRC have control over Republican era prints brought to Taiwan as well as Shiji copies found in Vietnam/Korea/Japan?

You have yet to prove that modern PRC editions differed from Shiji transcriptions found in various countries. As mentioned by >>2924172 they were copied verbatim.

>>2924167
And I'm saying just because censorship is overt in the PRC, doesn't mean censorship doesn't exist in a Democracy. See Washington consensus, Israel, MIC, and any mainstream news channel. Censorship still exists, just more subversive

>>2921513
I would say that 20 million is a good estimate; 40 million sounds a bit too much. From research by various figures, the Western Han dynasty had about 50-60 million after a long period of prosperity and development. The constant warfare and chaos of the late Warring States would have meant that the population was in stagnation/gradual decline and significantly lower than during this Han estimate that came about in the subsequent centuries.

>thread talking about Alexander is super slow
>thread changes topics to the CCP
>moves like lightning
sure are a lot of chink shills on here

>>2916727
>He was more likely poisoned using on of the only slow acting poisons available during that time period.
Alcohol?

>>2919483
>romans
>at battle of zhizhi

Pseud

>>2924320
>I would say that 20 million is a good estimate; 40 million sounds a bit too much.
20 million is on the low side,this number is derived from extrapolating the number of soldiers each Warring State was able to field(Shiji).

The higher estimate(40 million) is based on a number of factors such as working backwards from the population loss from the Chu-Han contention,the inclusion of disparate populations e.g. Qin colonists/prisoners in southern China,soldiers stationed in Inner Mongolia,barbarians in peripheral regions etc.

>>2920677
Has anyone taken note of the fact that Jie of Xia and Zhou of Shang and their concubines Mo Xi/Daji are literally the same couple? I mean, I don't think you need a PhD in Chinese history to notice that, but I've just never seen it brought up.

>>2924421
Shouldn't come as a surprise,many cultural nuances associated with the Chinese were formed during the Warring States.

To quote Mair
>There currently exists no convincing inscriptional, paleographic, or linguistic evidence for a Xià Dynasty that allegedly preceded the Shāng Dynasty.
>All mythological and historical evidence for
a putative Xià Dynasty dates to the Warring States or later periods and is seriously compromised by various textual and political / ideological problems.
http://sino-platonic.org/complete/spp238_xia_dynasty_china.pdf

>>2924416
*armor/shield

You missed that. There's a difference between Roman shields/armors and Romans. I can buy Roman shields and armors. Doesn't mean I'm Roman.

>>2924156
There's one autist who visibly has an axe to grind with muh marxist dictatorships censoring information just like in 1984 and everyone pointing out how ridiculous his claims are.

>>2924421
The prevailing suspicion is that most of what we know about the Xia dynasty may have been crafted by the Zhou to create a narrative that legitimizes their replacing the Shang i.e. it's okay for us to overthrow the Shang kings for being shite because they overthrew the Xia kings for being just as shite.

>>2924449
>criticizing lack of transparency in PRC history is anti-marxist
Good chink, stretching your chink shill too much and it will backfire. Might even lose that money.

>>2919483
Why would Roman equipment have improved over 300 years but Chinese crossbows stayed the same?

>>2924458
/pol/ please go

>>>/pol/

>>2924458
>lack of transparency in PRC history
What does that even mean and what does it have to do with premodern documents

>>2924467
>calling out wumao is /pol/
kek

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/50_Cent_Party

Alexander would have gone to arabia, as he said.
>Then take areas around Egypt and expand into Balkans.
>Then he'd probably die again.
More plot armor!
>He'd probably not war with Carthaginians, nothing to gain. Better to trade.
>Stomp Italy with help of Etruscans.
Then stop by Alps, mountains are Alexander's weakness.
>Then after 15 years with more plot armor he'd return and conquer India.
Plot armor can save him anymore...
>They build a pyramid twice the size of the biggest in Egypt, somewhere.

File: greatest of them all.png (3MB, 1878x1026px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1878x1026px

>>2924582

File: 1488008032492 (1).jpg (27KB, 540x337px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 540x337px

>>2924167
>Thinking humans are naturally inclined to being atomistic as Western people and that the Chinese will think the same as them without muh historical revisionism, muh brainwashing, muh censorship by the PRC.
>With the """""proper education""""", everyone will somehow surrender to Western liberal consensus because its somehow the Great Truth without having a single clue what that would mean in a chink context.
You drank the Enlightenment kool-aid.

>>2924419
You didn't really address my statistic about the Western Han. What do you think the peak population was during the Han dynasty? With the birth rates of agricultural economies (when there is peace and harmony of course), extrapolations from your estimate would mean that the peak approached 100 million at least after the good decades under the Liu family. Even accounting for cover-ups by landowners, census-dodgers, and depletion by military campaigns, your estimate is far too much with my approach.

Can I get a list of the total army sizes for each Warring state around 236 BC?

File: Alexander_IV_Aigos_Budge.png (85KB, 392x194px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 392x194px

>>2924582
After conquering the Arabian Peninsula, Carthage (which he wanted to do), the Romans and possibly the Iberian Peninsula (and plenty of Africa, since he wanted to circumnavigate it), he'd probably leave the mantle up to his son, whom I could see conquering all of India (if he inherited half the skill Alexander had) and even more of Europe, alongside building all the great cities and temples Alexander wanted to have built, which I definitely would've loved to see today, as he wanted to build a monumental tomb for his father which was supposed to rival the greatest pyramids of Egypt.

>>2924602
>what was the Hundred Flowers Campaign
>what was the June 4th incident

>>2916653
>>2916638
>it's a chinks taking obviously inflated numbers as facts episode

>>2919483
That theory has pretty much been disproven

>>2920630
it has also been proven that it is virtually impossible to field more than 30.000 people at a time

>>2924477
"Transparency" is another new buzz word.

>>2924008
>getting wounded in the back
what a fucking coward.

>>2916435
this whole thread is muh crossbows
what about the macedonian cavalry?
what about the mixed phalanx Alexander was developing just before he died?
what about his luck and momentum?
I think he could have fucked up the chinese really bad.

>>2926152
this completely ignores the fact that his whole supply lines would completely fall apart through ursurpation if he went that far away though.
But a single battle? I think Alexander would have won.

>>2918740
Honestly, I think if he attacked he'd win, and it's not so unlikely, I'll green text for ease of reading
>before his death he had already doubled his army size with Hellenic armed natives
>his original empire conquering army was from a small relativity (compared to Persia) poor state
>he now has the whole empire to raise more and more troops
>with veteran officers to train them
He was moving his heartland to Persia already, making communication less of a problem
>not to mention he could cut out Persia by sea with his new Indian Ocean fleet
>so he could probably match Chinese armies, and although it'd be an uphill battle he would still be Alexander but with and army that could be likely 10 times larger (and more diverse)
>already used horse archers and (had) elephants by the end of his campaigns
>now far wiser and had let his mutinous troops return home
>aside from crossbows and home ground advantage, there isn't much the Chinese would have to trump him

I can genuinely see him at the very least crushing/vassalising most of the smaller states and at best getting his sandals wet at the mouth of the yellow river. Many setbacks could occur, so it wouldn't be a set thing but it's very possible

>>2918735
If you are notafraid of manga read kingdom, it still got some anime bullshit but it is almost all battle between armies and you can see how it works from the smallest unit to the generals

>>2925521
>Implying the big-character posters during Hundred Flowers Campaign were united behind liberalism and democracy instead of being largely naive, well-meaning intellectuals of all political affiliations who got purged if caught saying anything remotely outside the party line
>Implying non-student protesters weren't either opportunists or focusing for non-ideological issues (unemployment by decline of inefficient state industries, pollution, etc)
>Implying most Chinese during 6/4 had any clue of what democracy means
>Implying a China with a successful Tiananmen, without the constraints of the Red Dragon, would "solve" Chinese nationalism in historiography and wouldn't unleash underlying ethnic chauvinism even more like in Korea and Japan

File: legalism.png (2MB, 824x4871px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 824x4871px

>>2926583
>literally pro-Qin historical revisionism

>>2916653
Don't believe the Chinks and their sources of 2 million men armies.

File: Greek & Roman Artillery 399 BC-AD 363-27.jpg (337KB, 1612x1200px) Image search: [Google]

337KB, 1612x1200px

>>2918740
>Alexander had Siege Crossbows(Gastraphetes) from Syracuse in his army. The Diadochi and big A probably knew how to handle them. Don't forget that.
The Greeks didn't practice Missile Warfare as the Chinks did.

For the Greeks it was merely skirmishing shit. For the Chinese it was already part of the main battle.

As such the Gastraphetes was only used in siege combat or naval warfare and was classified amongst the Catapults. It was too heavy for a light infantryman running around hurling/shooting shit at the enemy formation for it to be part of a greek missile contingent.

>>2926583
Jesus Christ there are actually people who think Kingdom has anything of worth to offer in the historical department? I don't hate Kingdom, but there are well-researched hist manga out there, and Kingdom definitely isn't one of them.

File: Late Imperial Chinese Armies 1520–1840-11.jpg (335KB, 1408x692px) Image search: [Google]

335KB, 1408x692px

>>2927928
Fine, we'll just ask western sources.

Whelp.

>>2927979
That was during later periods where Chinese population skyrocketed. The Chinese never had such large armies during the Tang and Han dynasties.

>>2920162
>Turks
>Indo-European

you're extremely retarded and have your chronology completely fucked up, do some basic reading before you shit up another thread.

>>2923770
>This historical records printed as source will not have any texts/documents/pov/information that brings negative light to PRC.

I mean i don't doubt this but what would that have to do with ancient history, happening thousands of years before the PRC?

>>2924874
>his son
don't fucking remind me

Let's boil this down a little.

Assuming a contemporary Qin force, how do they deal with a real Macedonian phalanx? Would they have ever seen anything like that?

Did they employ formations or tactics that Alexander or his Companions would have been completely unfamiliar with?

>>2928039
Cultural Revolution was a thing.

>>2927979
>1575 AD is essentially equivalent to 333 BC

wow you have literally no sense of time

>>2928057
>Assuming a contemporary Qin force, how do they deal with a real Macedonian phalanx?
If you believe this thread, masses of man-portable armor piercing crossbows.

>>2927995
Look up Han vs Xiongnu war numbers. While not 1M, its impossibly large compared to European force of the time. At the start of their campaign, the number was roughly 100K cavalry and 300K infantry totaling ~400K. I think this was as big as the largest Roman empire had or pretty close to it. By mid way into the fight, the number increased to 700K.

As for Tang, the number during Emperor Xuanzong's expansion was around 500K+.

While not 1M army strong, these are getting close.

File: 1494644480371.jpg (238KB, 1337x1289px) Image search: [Google]

238KB, 1337x1289px

>>2918853
>more over its populations are known for being quite hostile to invasion
>its not as nice as say India itself
That's not even remotely true. Do you get all your memes from /his/?

>>2928201
And Xerxes invaded Greece with 1M men.

>>2928227
Herodoctos claims there were ~2.5M
Persians claim ~800K

Modern scholars claim ~300-500K

Seems blown out of proportions by the Greeks as usual.

>>2928250
how do you not understand what double standards are?

>>2928252
Greeks have a history of blowing things out of proportions to inflate their cultural win margins. They have done that with the Persian wars, the Carthage wars, and the Alexander's wars. Its a repeated pattern in Ancient Greek history when they are the victors.

Its not a double standard because the same pattern doesn't exist in China. Pattern, not instances.

>>2928276
>the same pattern doesn't exist in China
sure kid, link the supporting outside historiography or gtfo

>>2928298
Show don't tell. I would change my mind if there's great exaggerations of numbers in ancient China due to perceived cultural superiority.

It would be weird to see those similar numbers between two warring states. Who gains the superiority in exaggerating the numbers? Or the Xiongnu-Han wars where the Han to Xiongnu numbers favor Han, yet the Han lost so many to the Xiongnu and nearly bankrupted them in the process. What benefit is there in these types of exaggerations? I don't see the motive nor the pattern in these cases.

So please do present your case, I don't hold my view as a great treasure, but something to change and understand for the matter of factibility.

>>2928298
honestly its not just the greeks who do this.

As a chink I have to say that most 50 cent soldiers can't speak English.

Also no one in china browses /his/ either; they are on 4chan for porn most of the time.

>>2928590
That's what a wumao would say

>>2924874
>>2924593
>tfw you don't live in the timeline where Alexander IV succeeded his father and spread Greco-Iranian culture throughout the world

>>2927962
>The Greeks didn't practice Missile Warfare as the Chinks did.
While this is historically true, for the counterfactual where Alexander didn't die, it's probably not. During his final years Alexander was experimenting with mixing Persian Archers (see really fucking good archers) into his Phalanx formation to make it more powerful and versatile.

>>2928590
you'd be surprised at the number of pandahuggers who do it for free

>>2928590
Wumaos are everywhere these days, even in outside of China, infact the PRC funds them outside of local cluster and into wider western world.

>https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/04/us/chinese-students-western-campuses-china-influence.html

Let's look at his army and basic tactics.

Infantry: The main line is heavily armored bronze-armored infantry. Contrary to what many believe, bronze is often superior to Iron in terms of strength and durability, particularly in armor. It's equivalent to mid-grade steel, but much heavier and less good for weapons. The hoplites and other infantry were equipped with a lot of bronze armor of high quality. Linothorax armor is excellent against swords, spears, and light axes. The large bronze shields they have are hardwood pressed with bronze. The Romans that went to China are a bad example - their tower shields were not even remotely as durable as those hoplon shields. The Greek armor's greatest weakness is in the legs. Often their shields have a leather "sheet" on the bottom to stop or catch arrows. The Sarissa would grant particular advantage over Chinese infantry

Light Infantry: Alexander had elite skirmishers from everywhere he conquered.

Cavalry: Alexander's Cavalry was basically the heaviest cavalry in the world at the time and extremely elite. They were half of Alexander's primary "hammer and anvil" strategy, with extraordinary control and capability. He had a lot of it, it was all probably the best in the world at the time (with the Persians being considered arguably the best when he showed up, making his domination of their cavalry all the more impressive). Later he also added thousands of horse-archers from conquered Scythians, and we all know how the Chinese do against Horse archers.

Archers: Alex primarily used Cretan archers that were considered elite in the Greek world and used heavy bronze arrowheads. Against China... probably not so great.

Alexander later added Elephants to his armies, something later Greeks overused but would have been hellishly effective in Alex's hands. Notably he primarily used them to transport supplies and for logistics, something he was a master at.

>>2928772
>and we all know how the Chinese do against Horse archers
The Han, Sui, and Tang all did very well against horse archers. The state of Zhao during the warring states adopted the Xiongnu style of mounted archery and did very well until the Qin crushed them.

>>2928772
Alex was fond of various mind games, pre-positioning schemes and so on, but always resolved his conflicts in open battle as quickly as possible. His tactics generally involve pinning the enemy in place with his infantry, then allowing his cavalry to strike a killing blow when the opportunity presented itself, and he made sure it always did. Equally dangerous is the fact that he was supported by a lot of top-tier generals as well.

There was a route to China through Bactria and that's the most likely approach, through Bactrian trade routes and with supplies coming directly to (and through) Bactria for the initial invasion. Past that he'd be likely to try to conquer as much of China as quickly as possible to get local supplies and allies, most likely in the same setup he's putting everyone else in. Pay taxes, give troops, I leave you be.

Alex died in 323BC with some hypothetical invasion probably taking place in five or so years after coming home from India.

His first move would have to be conquering Qin to ensure his supply lines were secure and to secure local supplies and soldiers.

The Qin's leader at this point is King Huiwen, and the Qin were strong and expansionist, though their leader is new. I'm not sure what tech he would have at this time but the Chinese tactics seem to be similar to the rest of the world - skirmishers, then heavy infantry, cavalry at the wings and rear to flank the enemy.

The Greeks likely have better armored infantry by far but use bronze weapons - against Iron armor, that's not as useful since bronze weapons will bend. We'd need to know exactly what King Huiwen had in order to really figure it out, both numbers and equipment wise. Any info specifically about Qin's equipment at the time?

>>2928796
It's a shame I don't know more about the warring states period, honestly.

>>2916853

Darius III wasn't an idiot and was by all indications a capable general capable of tactics and strategy. Alexander was simply a far superior general and diplomat, fracturing Darius's political support when Darius needed it most after each battle. Of course, when you're fighting Alexander, he makes it look so easy.

>>2916853
>>2928863

The only major display of Persian incompetence, IMO, was the initial resistance against the Greek invasion of Anatolia. None of the satraps listened to Memnon of Rhodes and they suffered the consequences.

>>2928828
>The Greeks likely have better armored infantry by far but use bronze weapons - against Iron armor, that's not as useful since bronze weapons will bend.
But the sarissa had an iron spear head

>>2924103

>being unironically in the tank for the deep state

>>2928866
Some of them, like the one that held him at the Persian Gates, were also fond of guerrilla warfare, taking superior terrain and so on. That one was extremely capable, though I forget his name.

Funny enough he ended up in a reverse-300 situation, attacking the Persians from the rear via a hidden pass.


>>2928876

Good point. The swords were still bronze though, iirc, and some of their arrowheads were quite specifically bronze. But you're right - pair that with the Chinese having lighter armor in general and the Greeks would be well equipped to fight them up close, should they get that far.

What I'd like to know is if Chinese crossbows of the time really could have penetrated the shields and armor of the Hoplites. People say they could but where is that data laid out and was it really tested scientifically? It'd be nice to know exactly how effective those arrows/bolts would be.

I feel like that's the real question it all comes down to. If yes then Alex would be in a tough position, if no then he could probably engage with and potentially win against much, much larger Chinese armies similarly to how he did against Persia.

People act like Persia was super weak and Darius was super incompetent, but nothing could be further from the truth. The Persians had nearly a million troops spread out, invaded Greece repeatedly and had expert soldiers in all kinds of warfare. Their leaders were competent, but that's it - competent. The Greeks had many top-tier generals and were led by a great one.

Look at the casualty reports though, and it's clear the Greeks were just really hard to kill. So it comes down to those arrows and bolts.

>>2927964

What are those well-researched historical manga?

>>2928897
>People say they could but where is that data laid out and was it really tested scientifically? It'd be nice to know exactly how effective those arrows/bolts would be.
This is what came up after a brief Google.

http://historum.com/asian-history/69030-han-dynasty-crossbow.html

Seems to be properly sourced but I haven't read the sources.

>Records of the Grand Historian, by Simaqian
>The Book of Later Han, by Fan Ye
>Chu-yen slips
>The Military Storehouse of YongShi’s 4th year Equipment Account Book
>Handbook of Oriental Studies, by Donald Wagner
>Asian Traditional Archery Research Network, by Stephen Selby
>Science and Civilization in Ancient China, by Needham
>Journal of the Society of Archer-Antiquaries, Volumes 12-22

>>2928909
So that source seems to be citing crossbow maintenance records.

>From the slips already excavated, we have available a set of records showing six crossbows shooting 168 to 280+ meters. Each of these crossbows had only draw weights of 3-5 stone, as compared to typical Han era crossbows of 6 stone. Of these crossbows, two was tested for their penetration ability, both puncturing a wooden wall (most likely a plank or fence) at 252 meters.

>Slip 14.026: 一今力五石廿九斤射百八十步辟木郭
>Translation: Present strength 5 stone 29 jin (341 lbs) and will penetrate a wooden wall at 180 paces (252 meters).

>Slip 515.46: 三石具弩射百廿步
>Translation: 3 stone (193.5 lbs) crossbow, fully assembled, shoots 120 paces (168 meters)

>Slip 36.10: 官第一六石具弩一今力四石【四十】二斤射白八十五步完
>Translation: Number one 6 stone crossbow, fully assembled, present strength is 4 stone 42 chin (285 lbs), and it will shoot to the end of 185 paces (259 meters).

>Slip 510.026: 五石具弩射百廿步
>Translation: Five stone crossbow fully assembled, shoots 120 paces (168 meters)

>Slip 341.3: 具弩一今力四石射二百…(smeared)…
>Translation: Fully assembled crossbow, present strength 4 stone (258 lbs), shoots two hundred and …[smeared] (280-418.6 meters).

>Slip 14.62A: 一今力三石廿九斤射百八十步辟木郭
>Translation: Present strength 3 stone 29 jin (212.2 lbs) and penetrates wooden wall at 252 meters.

>>2928914
>In general Chu-yen slips categorize crossbow draw weight by 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 10+ stone, with each stone unit being the modern equivalent of ~64.5 pounds. The majority of crossbows have a draw weight of 6 stone. From the above tests, one can extrapolate that typical Han crossbows of 6 stone would have an average range of over 300 meters, assuming that the bolt fired was no different from those fired from weaker crossbows. The following is a calculation on the percentage of crossbows for each categorical draw weight, but it is currently not verified by me as I did not count them personally(However, historian Yang Hong also states that the majority of crossbows were categorized with draw weights of 6 stone):
>1 stone: 1.37%
>2 stone: 1.37%
>3 stone: 21.92%
>4 stone: 2.74%
>5 dan: 17.81%
>6 dan: 43.84%
>7 dan: 2.74%
>8 stone: 2.74%
>10 stone and above (Great Yellow Crossbow): 5.48%

File: crossbow.jpg (74KB, 510x830px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 510x830px

>>2928918
>What must be noted is that crossbows were typically weaker than bows pound for pound due to their shorter powerstroke. Powerstroke is the length required for a string at rest to be drawn back to the trigger. This means crossbows must have heavier draw weights than bows in order to shoot the same projectile at the same velocity. Typical crossbows of Medieval Europe generally need to have three times the draw weight of a bow in order to give a similarly powerful shot, but made up for this by utilizing winches to maximize the draw weight.

>However, ancient Chinese crossbows thanks to their trigger design allow the nut of the trigger to be placed near the back of the stock. This results in relatively long power strokes rivaling that of a bow, which greatly reduces the crossbow’s usual weakness of energy transference inefficiency. Han dynasty crossbows would have a draw length of 24 inches, implying a powerstroke of 18-20 inches, or rivaling that of a bow.

>Above is medieval trigger, below is Han trigger

>Generally speaking, the power of a bow or crossbow measured in inch lbs = 0.5 x powerstroke length x draw weight. The most commonly mentioned crossbow in excavated accounting records were of the 6 stone (387 lb) type. In comparison most bows would only have draw weights of 40 to 100 lbs. Against armored men, Song dynasty archers could use bows with draw weights of up to 160 lbs, still less than half the draw weight of typical Han crossbows. From this, we have the following result for shooting power:

>Heaviest standard 8 stone Han crossbow power = 516 lbs draw weight * ~19 inches powerstroke/2 = 4902 inch lbs
>Heaviest Medieval crossbow found from Gallway = 1200 lbs draw weight * 7 inches powerstroke/2 = 4200 inch lbs
>Typical 6 stone strength Han crossbow's power = 387 lbs draw weight * ~19 inches powerstroke/2 = 3676.5 inch pounds
>Heavy Song dynasty bow made to pierce armor = 160 lbs draw weight * ~20 inches powerstroke/2 = 1600 inch pounds

>>2916638
>>2919586
It seems to me than the Chinese had more advanced weapons and armor than the Greeks. With their crossbows and coats of plates, they look more medieval than ancient compared to the linen armor of the Greeks.

>>2928909
Thanks. Now I've just got to compare that to any information that goes over the durability of the Aspis and Lamelar or bronze bell cuirasse armor vs arrows. Then we'd know for sure. Sounds like the 387 lbs draw weight of the Han era would be closest to the tech of 320'sBC.

Which I'll do in the morning, because holy shit 4am.

File: crossbow.jpg (27KB, 436x335px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 436x335px

>>2928921
>Weaker Han crossbows were categorized as “arm-drawn”, in that the bow was drawn in a standing position with the two feet grounded on the prod while the arms pulled the string up towards the trigger. More powerful Han crossbows were “foot-drawn”, in that the string was drawn in a sitting position using both the legs and the arms. This allows a much heavier draw weight as the muscles from the legs are much more powerful than those in the arms.

>For the typical Han crossbow, which is drawn in a sitting position, one is able to avoid lifting his own body weight. Thus the muscles from his legs and arms which would have been used for balance and lifting his own mass could now be diverted to drawing the crossbow. Today’s strength standard for a male novice in deadlifting would be around 235 lbs. Because a Han crossbowman would be loading his crossbow in a sitting position, he would receive another 150 lbs due to him not “lifting” or balancing most of his body weight. Plus, when loading a crossbow, only when the string reaches the trigger would the crossbowman be drawing the full draw weight, whereas in deadlifting the lifter would be lifting the full weight of the barbell from the start. So with a modicum of training, the everyday peasant would be able to draw a typical Han crossbow of 387 lbs in draw weight.

>The heaviest crossbows would be drawn with a winch. These would no longer be handheld but must be used with at least a prop. Immobile crossbows fixed inside military forts on on top of walls are called "Revolving Shooters". Each revolving shooter would have a very thick wooden plank in front of it for protection against enemy fire. "Yellow Crossbows" was the name given for more mobile devices. The strongest Heavy Yellow Crossbow could have draw weights of 90 stone, implying that its size would probably be akin to that of a ballista.

>Eastern Han mural depiction of a winched crossbow, possibly a lower tier "Yellow Crossbow"

>>2924629
>You didn't really address my statistic about the Western Han.
Irrelevant. There's a 200 year gap between the figure attested in 2 AD and the Qin unification. Archaeological evidence for the nascent bureaucratic apparatus necessary for such endeavors was already present during the Qin.

Not that I agree necessarily agree with Ge Jianxiong's claims that 50% of the population died during the Qin-Han interregnum, but he does site his sources(mainly,passages from the Shiji/Hanshu).

>What do you think the peak population was during the Han dynasty?
Using figures from Zhongguo renkou shi 63 million under the Western Han and over 70 million under the Eastern Han.

Han era population revisions are grounded far more in reality with extensive textual sources,as well as figures given for crop yields,reproductive age and annual population growth rates etc.

>Can I get a list of the total army sizes for each Warring state around 236 BC?
Take these figures with a grain of salt as these numbers are probably more figurative than literal.It should be noted that the theoretical maximum output of Warring States-Western Han mobilization(universal conscription) should outpace their contemporaries.

Based on the Su Qin's biography in Shiji, Qin and Chu had 1 million,Wei had at least 700,000,Zhao and Qi had around 800,000 with Han and Yan each having 500,000 or less. So 5,300,000 give or take.

The problem with the 20 million figure is the lack of methodology demonstrated by some authors as well as arguments that extrapolate a fixed growth rate of 1.5%(Wang Yumin) based on Marxist historiography and inexplicably derived the total population by multiplying the aforementioned figure by 5.

>>2928941
>The primary strength of the crossbow is without doubt its strong armor penetration capability. With a median draw weight of 387 lbs, and a powerstroke rivaling that of a bow, Han crossbows could shoot a projectile farther and faster than that of a bow. According to the Han era government official Chao Cuo, one of the biggest advantages of Han armies over the Xiongnu was that the crossbow could penetrate the leather armor and wooden shields that the nomads posses.

>Furthermore, a crossbow has the option to shoot shorter projectiles. For a bow, the length of an arrowshaft must be greater than the bow's draw length, or else the bow would not be able to shoot the arrow at full draw.
>By shooting shorter bolts, launched projectiles cannot be picked up by enemy archers to be shot back against the crossbowman.

>Another advantage is that the crossbow is much easier to aim and shoot than a bow. A bowman must take aim while his arms resist the tension of the string at full draw. Even the strongest bowman could only aim within a limited time frame before his bow arm gives in. A crossbowman can take aim indefinitely, as the tension is held by the trigger.

>A crossbowman can also draw the string before battle starts, to make sure he is able to take the first shot within a moment’s notice. Examples of this can be found such as when Xiangyu tried to kill the first Han emperor by hiding a pre-cocked pistol crossbow within his clothing. When emperor Wen inspected the military camp of general Zhou Yafu, the sentries were described in the Shiji as “in armour and bearing their swords and other weapons, their crossbows cocked and full of arrows”. The advantage to having a crossbow loaded indefinitely becomes particularly useful in sieges, as crossbowmen could use this advantage to take very quick pot-shots when enemies peek their heads from pavises, battlements, or any other protection.

>>2928948
>The Han crossbow does come with shortcomings. Han crossbow prods were composite, including sinew and horn materials. Compared to metal prods of winched crossbows in Medieval Europe, composite prods need to be longer in order to have the same draw weight. Thus each crossbowman requires more horizontal space for shooting, although this is partially offset by the fact that composite prods tend to shoot projectiles with higher velocity as compared to steel prods of the same draw weight.

>The high draw weight of the crossbow also makes stringing difficult, particularly when the bow is recurved like those of Han crossbow prods. By the Qin dynasty, this problem was probably alleviated by having a bastard string in addition to the main string, so that the prod could be left partially unstrung to make stringing easier for future use.

>When shooting at a particularly elevated angle, the stock of the crossbow would block the user's line of sight, nullifying the crossbow's advantage in superior range when it comes to precision shooting.

>The biggest offset for the crossbow was its reloading speed. Even when pulled by hand as opposed to mechanical means, a crossbowman would still be outpaced by an archer in rate of fire. However, to offset this disadvantage, Han era soldiers came up with a drill similar to the countermarch:

>“The drill of crossbowmen alternatively advancing [to shoot] and retiring [to load]; this is something the Xiongnu cannot face” –Chao Cuo of Western Han, Shiji

>>2928924
It was several layers of hardened linen with metal in plates underneath, and supposedly protected better than the bronze cuirass.

It'd probably be a lot like layered paper armor with metal backing.

>>2928942
The Persians had about 800,000 total.

File: W020140113514740989587.jpg (252KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

252KB, 600x450px

>>2928954
>The aiming of the crossbow was refined by both technology and technique. The Han trigger mechanism is a perfect manifestation of this. The trigger itself is designed to operate like a modern trigger in which stored horizontal energy is transferred into a vertical one. This sophisticated design is perhaps the first of its kind that fully allows both hands to stabilize a ranged weapon when discharging a shot.

>The trigger also comes with graduated sighting blade and grid sight in order to adjust for target distance, which allows the crossbowman to aim with better accuracy. Liu Chong of the Han dynasty, himself very adept as a crossbowman, described how to use it:
“of all the things in the whole wide world, there is none so extraordinary as the principle of sighting. There are three minute points and three small points. The three minute points and three small points are upon the warp and the three small points are upon the weft [analogy to silk looms]. They unite upon the catch of the crossbow. “-translation from atarn

>Nearly 1000 years later, Shen Gua of the Song dynasty unearthed a trigger mechanism with a sighting blade. Using Liu Chong’s method for shooting, he managed to score 7-8 hits out of 10. Shen Gua claimed he could have scored even better with a graduated sight.

>The Book of Later Han listed some of the most popular works read during the Han dynasty. Two of the lost books are named “The Strong Crossbow General Wang Wei’s Way of Shooting” and “The Way of Shooting from Afar with the Interconnected Crossbow [a ballista]”. There are other book titles that mention styles of shooting such as “General Li’s Way of Shooting”, which may include the art of shooting crossbows. It is unfortunate that all but the title of the books are lost.

>>2928960
>Here is a generalization made by the Han stateman Chao Cuo over the advantages/disadvantages of Han armies when fighting Xiongnu steppe nomads:

>Now both the country and the tactics of the Xiongnu are different from those of the Chinese. Their lands are nothing but mountain-slopes with ways going up and down and winding through gorges in and out; in such regions our Chinese horses cannot compete with theirs. Along the tracks at the edges of precipices still they ride and shoot; our Chinese horse archers can hardly do the like. Rain and storm, exhaustion and fatigue, hunger and thirst, nothing do they fear; our Chinese soldiers can in these things hardly compare with them. These are the merits of the Xiongnu.

>On the other hand, on plains light chariots can be used and cavalry charges made; in such conditions the Xiongnu are readily thrown into confusion. The strong crossbow (劲弩) and the ballista shooting javelins have a long range; something which the bows of the Xiongnu can in no way equal. The use of sharp weapons with long and short handles by disciplined companies of armoured soldiers in various combinations, including the drill of crossbowmen alternatively advancing [to shoot] and retiring [to load]; this is something that even the Xiongnu cannot face. The troops with crossbows ride forward and shoot off all their bolts in one direction; this is something which the leather armour and wooden shields of the Xiongnu cannot resist. Then the [Chinese horse-archers] dismount and fight forward on foot with sword and halberd; this is something that the Xiongnu do not know how to do. Such are the merits of the Chinese.

>-Records of the Grand Historian, Simaqian

>>2928924
>coats of plates
The Chinese were mostly wearing lamellar made from ox/water buffalo/rhinoceros hide as well as bronze/iron.

Coat of plates/brigandine doesn't come into play under after the Mongol conquest.

>>2928959
>The Persians had about 800,000 total.
Probably exaggerated as well. You have to keep in mind that the Ming never reached this 5,300,000 figure with more than quadruple the population of the Warring States.

>>2928964
https://youtu.be/gKRI0gZRMjQ?t=22m34s

>>2928975
Note in the video they don't test an actual full replica Qin crossbow, after testing the sights with weaker demonstration bows they use a modern crossbow calibrated to 200lbs to test penetration which the guy doing the testing gives as what he believes to have been Qin crossbow draw weight. Since this is less than the 387lbs given for typical 6 stone Han crossbows in the slips maybe the Qin crossbows were less powerful, or maybe he's just referring to one of the 3 stone bows?

>>2928635
Well his successors definitely did.

File: Han-Xiongnu Wars.jpg (89KB, 329x492px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 329x492px

>>2928772
>and we all know how the Chinese do against Horse archers.
...they too had their own archers - often the Nomads themselves- and often took the battle to the steppenigs?

If anything, save Japan, there's really no non-horse archer cavalry unit in East Asia. Everyone one serving in the cavalrywas expected to twang bows, both light and heavy cavalry.

File: qin.png (114KB, 1306x418px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 1306x418px

>>2928828
Here's Qin dynasty's terracotta army composition or atleast one of the formations. We know there are plenty as detailed in many of then chinese war manuals, this is probably one of the standard during this time.

A U shape with heavy infantry in the inner U and crossbowmen on the edges all the way, the main front top units seems to be heavy armored for both crossbowmen/heavy infantry. There's also various chariots/cavalry around.

>>2929138
Why the distinction between arrows and triggers on the diagram? Is it to separate crossbowmen from archers?

>>2929171
Just for reference probably (in the image).

File: 1490065958374.gif (2MB, 302x339px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 302x339px

>>2928201
Fuck off, kid. The Roman Empire which had a larger population than the Han dynasty and was a MILITARY STATE had a hard time fielded armies that big, you're saying some Chinks had no problem fielding 2 million army against a fucking 4 million STEPPE TRIBE in the MIDDLE of SIBERIA.

Do you even hear yourself?

>>2920677
https://www.google.es/amp/relay.nationalgeographic.com/proxy/distribution/public/amp/2016/08/china-yellow-river-great-flood-xia-dynasty-yu

You spoke too soon

>>2923486
>>2923577
>>2923770
These histories were all copied and trascribed into Western languages centuries before the PRC you fucking retards.

>>2928315
During the Three Kingdoms period at the battle of Red Cliff Cao Cao claimed to have had 800,000 thousand men while Zhou Yu estimation was that of 200,000 at most. Zhou Yu was the victor. Rulers exaggerate their numbers for a number of reasons. There is no way the Chinese could field such large armies as they claimed they could.

>>2924136
There is no PRC ministry of Truth. Furthermore, there are copies of all of these works outside China.

The PRC only took power in 1949-1950.

>>2924337
A racist claiming all Chinese falsify their history so you can't trust any of it bothers everyone with any shred of objectivity.

>>2929594
Is there any evidence that the Roman Empire always had more people than the Han, as you claim?

Furthermore, there's this weird assumption that legion armies and mass conscription armies are the same military systems.
It is very plausible that China with fewer people could have more soldiers on the battlefield. Many just aren't trained, while most of Rome's soldiers were career men for 10-20 years.

>>2925732
>it's a cumskin that can't handle the facts and got triggered

>>2929655
Most academics agree that during 25 BC Rome had a population of 57 million while the Han had 55 (and that was before the Roman Empire where additional territory was added). Also, it doesn't really matter what form of military system they used, the Han dynasty couldn't field these numbers in a million years with the population they had.

Furthermore, they claimed that the Xiongnu had similiar numbers which is absolutely impossible as if you look the territory that the Xiongnu confederacy nominally possessed, you would see that it was roughly modern day Mongolia and modern day Mongolia has the lowest population density in the world. and roughly 3 million people. You would see that is so because the territory that they have has nothing of particular value - no good land in which they can grow food, extremely dry, desert, etc. To claim that the Xiongnu could field such large numbers possessing the same land is simply ridiculous.

File: chinese ancient armor.jpg (47KB, 580x815px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 580x815px

>>2928973
Isn't that a coat of plates ?

So after everyone has posted on what China had, I think we can make a decision.

The Greek Armor was much stronger than anything the Chinese had faced before. Likewise, chinese crossbows were far, far more powerful than anything the Greeks had faced. The Greek siege crossbow was actually only about a 90lb draw weight; they were severely underpowered.

The Scythians were actually using composite bows with high draw weights even at this time, however. Alexander in Sogdiana crossed a river while under arrow fire, disrupted their formations and his troops still took few casualties. They were also fond of poisoning arrows like the Chinese.

I don't believe the Chinese crossbows of the time would have penetrated Greek shields and armor. They're able to penetrate through leather and wood, but Greek armor is Leather, linen, bronze/iron and wood. Specifically the Aspis was a layer of bronze, thick hardwood and then leather backing. They were also rounded and provided less purchase for arrows that did hit. This heavy layered armor severely reduces speed and flexibility but is perhaps best against arrows. All of their armor was layered, and those multiple layers tended to catch things that would punch through the armor of normal enemies handily.

One reason why the Greeks lost against the Romans is that the Romans were lighter and more flexible, enabling them to flank the Macedonians. The Chinese would also have this advantage, except their cavalry is shit and they're still relying heavily on Chariots in this era. The Macedonian cavalry is heavily armed and armored and is by far the most elite in this era.

The Chinese would have the advantage of more Iron weapons, but the Greeks would have the advantage of better designed weapons like the Sarissa, which would outrange the Chinese infantry of the Qin.

That said, however, the Chinese are stupidly more numerous than the Greeks. Assuming they're sending those 100,000 man armies at Alexander it'd be an enormous challenge.

File: 88b554aae65046506759ec8d7da378a6.jpg (132KB, 736x1038px) Image search: [Google]

132KB, 736x1038px

>>2930941
One thing that is clear is that Alexander would be replacing his crossbows with Chinese ones very, very quickly. The Chinese fight almost like Bizarro Greeks - tons of ranged weapons, lighter armor and able to raise a lot of local cavalry.

Alex wasn't just a Greek fighting with hoplites, though. He'd have a total mobility advantage with his superior cavalry. That cavalry wasn't a knight formation, though, and wasn't really designed to go head to head with lots of infantry. Crossbows would still chew up the more lightly armored horses themselves. That said, however, they're one of the first real shock cavalry forces in the history of the world and there's no reason to believe they wouldn't tear through infantry when applied to any weak points.

Add to this that the Chinese really did levy huge armies from peasants and morale was probably not great. Still, quantity has a quality all its own.

What is likely to happen if we replaced Alexander with one of his generals would be a more typical battle. The Greeks have the mobility advantage and durability advantage, but are crazily outnumbered. They'd almost certainly be overwhelmed. The battle at the Granicus shows the limits of hoplites - if not for Alex's killing blow the lines would have eventually given. However the Greeks have Scythians horse archers to also harass the Chinese while the heavy cavalry does the job. While the Scythians are no better than any horse people the Chinese fought, those horse archers didn't use these combined arms tactics and weren't backed by heavy infantry and cavalry like Alex's.

Alex himself would probably choose the battlefield to limit numbers advantages, smash the first army sent against him and send envoys to the other Chinese states to unite against the Qin.

Alex did love sending technology and plants home though, so the one guarantee we have is that win or lose Aristotle would open up a package with Qin crossbows and rice. That would change the later world massively.

>>2929702
That's to say nothing of the size of the armies pouring out a united mongolia in the middle ages, when it conquered half the world. They numbered in the tens of thousands. Tiny.

>>2928954
>Han crossbow prods were composite
fucking what

>>2929655
>Many just aren't trained

advantage Alexander

>>2929636
Faggots claiming that all Greeks falsify their history earlier ITT, but somehow the Chinese are just paragons of truth and accurate reporting.

As if the Chinese and Greeks didn't have the exact same "outsiders are just barbarians" mentality.

>>2931146
It makes some sense that the Chinese could have had huge armies; that said actual historians tend to put them around 100,000 max in individual armies. Armies with "hundreds of thousands" of fighters most likely reflect two armies with about that number meeting.

That still sounds crazily high, but remember rice is actually the best military crop there is. It preserves well, packs easy, and lasts a long, long time. As long as you have sufficient farmers to make it armies are actually easily supplied with it. Even today, many asian militaries have their MRE's be full of uncooked rice with built in heaters. In 20 minutes you've got a survival meal and it lasts almost forever with little prep. The Chinese also rarely fought off their homeland, simplifying supply a lot and lowering the necessity of forage. Legalism, the philosophy of the Qin, was about society turning into nothing but farmers and fighters and maximizing numbers.

Wheat, potatoes, and sweet potatoes all go bad much faster. The most likely equal for it was Corn and beans, and pre-colonization the Native Americans were said to have craaaazy numbers. Corn was great because you could make something like corn nuts with any campfire and a rock provided you've got the right corn.

The reason populations and armies are so big now is because all of these crops are now in the hands of everyone. Wheat, rice, corn, beans, potatoes, sweet potatoes, and the other less major crops are now there for anybody to grow if they want.

Basically the Chinese even then had shit infantry soldiers, but had about a mirrion of them. They just happened to fight with massed ranged weapons on top of that, and a hundred thousand armor piercing arrows are deadly no matter who shoots them.

>>2929803
>Isn't that a coat of plates ?
Interesting,this type of leather armor was indeed riveted(if the terracotta statues can be trusted).

When you originally mentioned "coat of plates" I was thinking of metal armor that was riveted inside a textile based material.

>>2916638
>>2916653
Alexanders army was fucking massive. The forces he took afield, however, would be much smaller.

>>2928897
>The swords were still bronze though, iirc,
Completely fucking wrong.

>By the time of the Warring States, reforms began that abolished feudalism and created powerful, centralized states. The power of the aristocracy was curbed and for the first time, professional generals were appointed on merit, rather than birth.

>Technological advances such as iron weapons and crossbows put the chariot-riding nobility out of business and favored large, professional standing armies, who were well-supplied and could fight a sustained campaign.

>The size of armies increased; whereas before 500 BC Chinese field armies numbered in the tens of thousands, by 300 BC armies regularly included up to a couple of hundred thousand drafted soldiers, accompanied by cavalry. For example, during the Battle of Changping the state of Qin drafted all males over 15 years of age. Although these conscripts with one to two years of training would be no match individually against aristocratic warriors with years of experience, they made up for it with superior standardization, discipline, organization, and size.[9]

>Although most soldiers were conscripts, it was also common to select soldiers based on specific qualifications. The Confucian adviser Xun Zi claimed that foot soldiers from the Wei state were required to wear armor and helmets, shoulder a crossbow with fifty arrows, strap a spear and sword, carry three day's supply of rations, and all the while march 50 kilometers in a day. When a man meets this requirement, his household would be exempted from all corvée labor obligations. He would also be given special tax benefits on land and housing. However, this policy made soldiers in the Wei state difficult to replace.[10]

>In addition, cavalry was introduced. The first recorded use of cavalry took place in the Battle of Maling, in which general Pang Juan of Wei led his division of 5,000 cavalry into a trap by Qi forces. In 307 BC, King Wuling of Zhao ordered the adoption of nomadic clothing in order to train his own division of cavalry archers.

>>2930988
Unless Alexander captures Chinese weapons depot, its unlikely he would be able to get those weapons "very quickly". The creation of the crossbow was done through mass production which the state controlled, atleast Qin did. So he'd first have to defeat a large contingent of Qin army and then if he needs to, scavange the deads and take the crossbows.

Neither route is "very quickly". Crossbows would definitely get into Alexander's army sooner or later though, however I wonder if it would get into his hands fast enough to offset the loss of men to crossbows. My guess is, the initial fights with crossbow would lead to a disaster and would either be forced to retreat/regroup or face total destruction.

As for the Chinese army, the image here >>2929138 shows somewhat of what the army composition would be like. Professional army with full armor at front, conscript without heavy armors in back. It seems roughly 50/50 ratio on professional/conscripts. So if Qin had a standard professional army of 100K and conscripts additional 100K, they could effectively double the operation rate. While not as effective as 200K fully professional, 100K prof + 100K conscript would still stand relatively good chance against them.

>>2931307
>potatoes, and sweet potatoes
>Corn
those are American crops at this point.

>pre-colonization the Native Americans were said to have craaaazy numbers

those estimations are based on literally mere speculation.

File: Rice.jpg (61KB, 700x582px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 700x582px

>>2931307
Rice wasn't the main crop during this time, it didn't become dominant in Chinese diets until the Song Dynasty. Plus, wheat and millet were/are the main crops in the dry, colder environment northern China, where most of the Chinese states were located. The land suitable for rice, the south of the Huai River and the Sichuan basin, was still largely uncultivated wilderness during the Warring States.

>>2932668
Rice wasn't the main crop, but it was still eaten during warring states, just not as frequently as wheat/barley/millet. Cultivation of rice required bit more resources than those other grains.

>>2932668
>Huai River and the Sichuan basin, was still largely uncultivated wilderness during the Warring States.
No,the Huai and the Ba-Shu regions were fairly densely populated.

The inhabitants of those regions clearly had a separate civilizational identity compared to the Northern Chinese polities save for Qin(which rejected the Hua identity).

File: images.jpg (8KB, 224x225px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 224x225px

>>2932710
Yes, but your explanation, in terms of type of food, doesn't explain why regions inhospitable to rice like Guanzhong were still able to raise and sustain 6-figure armies.
Also, as >>2932571 noted, American crops came thousands of years after this period.

>>2932712
Wilderness might be an exaggeration, especially for the area between the Huai and Chang rivers and Jiangnan immediately to the south, but weren't those regions still relatively underpopulated compared to the heartland around the Yellow River? Chu in the south had the largest population out of all the states, but it was largely due to the sheer amount of land it controlled. Even after hundreds of years during the Han, you can see from pic related that the main population region is not in the rice range.

>>2932759
>Wilderness might be an exaggeration, especially for the area between the Huai and Chang rivers and Jiangnan immediately to the south
They weren't underpopulated,the northwest and the northern regions of modern Shaanxi/Shanxi/Inner Mongolia are.

>Chu in the south had the largest population out of all the states
You have to remember the Chu royal family originally had its origin in southern Henan province as well as controlling the territories corresponding to Runan and Nanyang commanderies.

>you can see from pic related that the main population region is not in the rice range.
I'm not the guy arguing for the prominence of rice. Going by the Eastern Han census the the regions corresponding to the former states of Qi, and portions of Zhao,Wei and Yan had the highest population density.

As we lack concrete data for the late Warring States the core regions of the Qin were devastated by Xiang Yu's massacres as well probably having a lower population overall.

>>2932759
Qin reform took place that emphasized agricultural output. Accordingly to wiki it states the reforms also involved creating public a more robust food distribution and productions system, like large scale irrigation canals and many public works. In addition to the conscripts working as soldiers, they also worked on government funded projects.

One of the reform also involved wealth re-distribution tactics which removed the ruling 1% nobility/merchants and took their powers/wealth and redistributed it to the state. One thing that differentiated Qin state from the rest was the Legalist position. It emphasized state efficiency over customs and traditions.

As someone else mentioned, Qin was basically a totalitarian state dedicated to fighting and feeding soldiers. China in general was much more militaristic during the warring state period than it was later. Realistically, Alexander was way too far away from his home base to unite China. And he has to get past India first. He beat a few tribes on the Indus river before his troops mutinied.

Crossbows are a non issue. They don't really pack any more punch than a recurve bow.

How is this thread still going?

I like geeking out about China's huge armies as much as the next guy but the answer to this question can only be "It never could have happened, Alexander wouldn't have made it there with enough troops to conquer a rice paddy. China was just too far away."

>>2929670
Yep the Chinese could raise 250,000 men armies and the Persians had a million man army invade Greece. Nevermind the logistics involved in an ancient army.

>>2932860
Because it shifted into argument about people recognizing Greek exaggerations about army sizes, but taking Chinese numbers seriously.

>>2932873
>>2932860
The key disagreements is whether Qin is superior or Alexander is superior.

What if, by some strange luck, they are roughly equal in quality due to the nature of the era? Both are highly organized armies. Both are highly equipped. Both are highly trained soldiers.

So by these simple assumptions, we can simply go by logistics, which would mean Qin would win.

Now Greekophiles wont have that. So we give Alexander's army 20% advantage in quality. This would still favor Chinese due to numbers.

Only real chance of Alexander winning against Qin is if they were 100% better than Qin. Every Greek soldier being equal to 2 Qin. Even that will be a win for Qin most likely.

Greekophiles simply do not want to acknowledge that this is a lost cause. If Qin met Alexander's army at Afghan border, then theres some work to be done however at the Qin's doorstep? Not a chance.

Since Qin would be expanding westward, they would gain more experience. So quality wise, they would roughly be equal. However the problem is numbers. If they're both equal in numbers, there's roughly equal chance for both sides. It will then be a matter of alliances.

>>2927913
Wasn't legalism so anal that all crime carried the same punishment?

>>2932833
Indeed, but as I said, then Qin's ability to raise large armies can be at least partially attributed to its excellent infrastructure rather than the properties of rice, which played a minimal role in Qin agriculture.

>>2932958
No, but severity was the order of the day.

>>2932856
This, people underestimate the desperation and the level of treacherous violence of this age. Never had before China been so militarized and it has never been ever since.

>>2932958
Nope. Legalism was anal in that the severity of the punishment relative to the crime. However this was due to the fear/deterrence factor.

If light crimes were punished severely(relatively speaking), heavy crimes were punished extremely severe(relatively speaking).

In essence, they just added 1/2 more factors to punishment relative to the crime.

>>2932856
Total war concept developed in warring states period for a reason. Entire state was worked for the sole purpose of war.

>>2932976

Judging by its history the Chinese might the most barbarous and coldly calculating race to ever exist

Their lack of value of human life is astounding especially when you consider the philosophical and religious thought that gained popularity in China throughout its history.

>>2933098
Its what happens when autistic take power. Legalism is basically an autistic trap. Disregard for traditions, disregard for things like humbleness, humility, goodness of man, etc. Purely dedicated to the furtherance of the state.

>>2933098
>>2933114
The Chinese themselves admitted legalism was a mistake. Though they did quietly keep its idea of an absolute monarch ruling a united realm under one law.

>>2933124
Legalist ideas were kept all around. The idea of meritocratic government bureaucratic system, the idea of large state projects, the idea of state controlled economies, disregard for tradition and regard for practicality, etc

Even China today practices these things.

>>2933142
>disregard for tradition and regard for practicality
It depends how Confucian or Legalist the government is. If its the former, then tradition will also be emphasized along with practicality.

>>2933170
And then there's Taoism every now and again to wreck your scientific advancement.

>>2933124
>>2933142
From the Han dynasty Confucianism was basically generally a facade to disguise the underlying Legalist government.

>>2916435
these memes about "Chinese" before 20th century...

>>2935125
China has existed since at least 221BC.

>>2936472
Not to mention that it existed even before that, in the same way that "Europe" existed for most of its history.

>>2932872
>Persians had a million man army invade Greece
I hope you are being sarcastic.

>>2937196
If we don't trust Herodotus's numbers why should we trust Sima Qian's numbers?

>>2935125
>these memes about "Chinese" before 20th century...
Sorry, we don't call ourselves "Chinese" in Chinese, you Westerners call us Chinese. We call ourselves "Zhong Guo Ren中國人" or "Hua Ren華人" or "Tang Ren唐人" in old times.

>>2928897

>People act like Persia was super weak and Darius was super incompetent, but nothing could be further from the truth. The Persians had nearly a million troops spread out, invaded Greece repeatedly and had expert soldiers in all kinds of warfare. Their leaders were competent, but that's it - competent. The Greeks had many top-tier generals and were led by a great one

Nope, the Persians by the time of Alexander were crumbling internally. The state had become increasingly decentralized over the decades and the military fell into neglect. There's a reason why after Granicus, Darius III wasn't able to raise another army to stop the Greeks until Issus.

>>2937823
>We call ourselves "Zhong Guo Ren中國人"
do you think ethnic Chinese living in places like Singapore, Malaysia, Australia, USA are also 中國人, or just 華人?

>>2937794
Faulty logic. Herodoctus's numbers are well known to be inaccurate and of great exaggeration. Even historical records disagree with it. Modern historians disagree with his numbers as well.

While Herodotus might be guilty of that, the same cannot be said of Sima Qian, his records haven't made him to be a great liar.

>>2936491
When did Europe as an identity really emerge?

>>2928897
Darius III literally had no experience as a king. He was already in his mid to late 50s/60s by the time Alexander had invaded the Persian Empire. Yes he had a long history of being a soldier and a very good one at that in his youth but he was nowhere close that period in his life. Darius had little experience as being a satrap/governor as well before Atarxerxes III's assassination and him being propelled to powers after Bagoas betrayal. So little experience as a governor, almost no experience as a king, and an empire whose military and civilian leaders treated him as a fool until he managed to have Bagoas killed.

Also all the reformations to the Persian Empire's military and government were reversed by people like Bagoas that Atarxerxes III did, so nah. Also the Battle of the Persian Gate was a small Persian force under a skilled commander pulling a reverse Thermopylae.

>Persia had nearly a million troops
No they didn't.