Ancient Greece of Alexander the great vs Qin Dynasty war scenario?

I am going to be very honest with you. And I have Han ancestry myself and I know my own history compared to a Western.

I live in the United States for a long time I've notice even today. Most of the education on history is mostly about the West. So i doubt most of these people don't know anything about the history of China. China was historical advance Chinese was never weak civilization. I can understand why because During Manchu rule. They made China like crap and halt on technology. Because of this China lost to most Western powers. During the Ming Dynasty China was very strong they were able to beat the Portuguese in 2 naval battles. And they also defeated the Dutch as well and at the time. They were one of the strongest European super powers. Most Westerners don't know how Chinese warfare worked.

In your scenario, the Chinese would win. Since you never gave generals who are in command. So on a individual level the Chinese would own the Greeks. Why you ask?

The Greek Phalanx was good but against Chinese armies was useless. The Chinese warfare they always use there range units and siege crossbow weapons at the Phalanx. In massive volleys to deal heavy damage, so the Phalanx and plus Hoplites will be destroyed. The Greek infantry won't be able to reach the Qin forces. Plus last I check Sparta never joined the Greek alliance since Philip and Alexander never invaded Sparta and left them alone. And not to mention Greek Infantry could not on a individual level could not hold there own compared to a solider of the Qin. After the volley the Qin sends there vastly Infantry, cavalry, and chariots to charge at the enemy. The reason why they Qin used chariots is because they were so use to breaking enemy formations. The Greeks would have no choice but to depend on there cavalry. The Greeks had a good cavalry then the Qin at the time. The disadvantage is the Qin never had any heavy cavalry. Mostly were all light cavalry. But in the end Qin would have won the battle whats left of the Greek and Macedonian army. Would have been overwhelmed by the Qin forces.

Yes, most soldiers of Qin were conscripts but were not weak as you expected. If QIn was able to conquer the other states. That meant the conscripts had some professional training. Lets not forgot Qin was more advance then the other states.

And yes, the Qin Dynasty did have the Chu Ko Nu (the reapting crossbow). Lets not forgot each tip of the arrow were poison. Even if you did have Armour on if it hits your flesh then you died in minutes due to poison from the arrow tip of the Chu Ko Nu.

4000 v 900,000 - too much an imbalance in numbers,even for Alexander.

However,give him his normal sized army - 40,000 to 50,000 - and Alexander wins every time.

The vast majority of the soldiers in Qin armies were conscripts,and thus of doubtful enthusiams and competence - the tough,professional Macedonian troops would go through them like a knife through butter.Many contingents were also from conquered Chinese states,so again of doubtful enthusiasm in the Qin cause.

The main arm in battle for the Qin were chariots supported by horse archers,bur Alexander successfully dealt tactically with such a combination at Arbela (against a much larger Persian army) so there is no overriding reason to suppose he would be unable to do so against a Qin army.

NO repeating crossbows in a Qin army - the weapon was not invented in a form suitable for military use until the late 2nd century AD (at the earliest),and thus was not available to Qin forces over 400 years earlier.

With his full army under his command,Alexander never lost a campaign or battle,so again,no overriding reason to suppose he would lose against a Qin army.

there were 35000 in Alexander not 4000

Siege = Alexander will win in terms of siege more accurate destructive and you forgot to include Greeks have siege tower which basically cancel effectiveness of bows and crossbows. used in siege of tyre.

Range = china will win because of the belief of Greeks the valour and greatness is not within range but through swords.

Foot soldiers= Alexander tactic formation and Greek use whole body bronze armour while qin use leather

cavalry= greeks have heavy lance cavalry while according to you qin has only light so these goes for greeks

numbers didn't always matter back than due to smaller better trained armies like the 300 Spartans vs the large Persian army(according to archaeological evidence the 300 kicked *** until the Persians gained the flank). but 900,000 to 4,000 is a big difference. the Chinese also have a major technological advantage.

I'll take china on this one, it seems like a better bet to take to Vegas.

Hard to say they look evenly match and both fought different styles of warfare with some similarities. But I can see the Chinese have a technological advantage.

I was on YA for something unrelated, then this topic was shown on the sidebar...

Greeks are cool but I have to go with Chinese on this one.

i still gotta rock out with the Greeks

Logistics and location are important in war.

"Ignore logistics and location"? How about I just ignore your whole idiotic question?