Arts & Humanities >
Asian History
Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedWho would win: the Ancient Greeks or the Ancient Chinese
Results so far:
| Greeks | 57% | 144 votes | Total: 253 votes | |
| Chinese | 43% | 109 votes |
Greeks
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesIn a debate like this, which really begs for a very silly kind of alternate history fantasy where Alexander meets up against Sun-Tzu (or in Pinyin Sun Zi), any real representation of the conflict would probably be a huge mismatch. It has very little to do with the two great leaders, either. If these two guys were playing chess, or some kind of Napoleonics miniature simulation, who knows who would out think the other. But the reason the Ancient Greeks would easily beat the Ancient Chinese is simply a matter of technology.
In the Warring States period of Chinese ancient history, approximately contemporary with the rise of the Greeks from their Spartan and Athenian origins, they had just begun to use iron in their weapons, rather than bronze. The Greeks' "Machaira" and "Xiphos" were both made of high-carbon steel, and that wasn't even their primary weapon. In a situation in which a Greek soldier met a Chinese soldier in a sword fight, the Greek would shatter the Chinese weapon.
But that probably wouldn't happen because the Chinese military strategy in terms of tactics, as far as we can tell from Sun Tzu, was close-quarters melee, with the use of light archer artillery. Well, the Greeks, at this point in history, were using siege weapons, including the catapult. They also incorporated the use of pitch and tar as weapons to set the enemy aflame. Archimedes was supposed to even have invented a steam-powered ballista, which might even be considered a primitive cannon. Now, perhaps that's hyperbole, since it is brought to us by Cato, via DaVinci, but it is impressive nevertheless. The gastriphetes was a type of primitive crossbow that the Greeks used very rarely. Alexander had two or three light siege weapons loaded in wagons following each phalanx. He also revolutionized the use of artillery, using light artillery and seige weapons for covering fire.
In addition, the Greeks were able to defeat almost anyone on the field by using the tactic of THE PHALANX. By lining up shield to shield, with spears thrust forward, and moving in lock step, they were able to push the enemy back, cause continuous casualties and havoc to the enemy leading ranks, take few casualties, and eventually break the morale of the enemy. The phalanx was nearly invulnerable until the rise of the Roman Legion, with its more rapid deployment, diversity of tactics and flexibility. The phalanx, which was never a part of Chinese battle tactics as far as we can tell, would have marched over the inferior close melee tactics of the Chinese.
The tactics of Greek warfare were not limited to the use of the phalanx, either. Alexander was notable in his use of open cavalry, especially chariots. He also prized the ability to move his armies very quickly over long distances.
Finally, the inferiority of the primitive Chinese sailing vessels of the time, to the Greek trireme, would have sealed the conflict by giving the Greeks a superiority on the ocean, and in terms of transport. In addition, the Greeks of Egypt developed huge war ships capable of crewing 7000! Apparently Ptolemy Philopator (c. 244 - 205 BC) built a ship that was 130m (420 feet) long, 18m (57 feet) wide, and 22m (72 feet) high to the top of her gunwale. That's pretty incredible. Dominating the battle on land and on the sea means that the Chinese had only one hope.
Perhaps they could have mounted enough giant kites to launch an air force capable of defeating the superior land and sea forces of the Greeks.
Somehow, I doubt it.
Learn more about this author, John Devera.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Chinese
Supposing that Alexander the Great (356-323BC) and Sun Wu (Later given the honorific Sun-Tzu, or Master Sun)and his ancestors, thought to have united the seven kingdoms of China, lived in the same time period and squared off against each other across an ancient battlefield, one would be hard pressed to pick a winner based solely on the history of the two Generals and the battles they fought. They were fighting completely different enemies with completely different technologies at arguably the same time in history. Some Scholars place Sun-Tzu in the Spring/Autumn Period and some place him in the Age of Warring States, but for the purposes of this discussion, we will suppose that Sun-Tzu did in fact command the battlefields of Asia during the Age of Warring States some time between 403221 BC which would place him or his son and grandson in command nearer to Alexanders' own time.
While Alexander was a cunning strategist and an able leader in his own right, he did not face the type of warriors that Sun-Tzu had to face on the battlefield. Granted, Alexander had to face superior numbers in most of his battles with Persia and with India, the quality of the warriors and the quality of weapons, training, and armor of his opponents was far inferior to his own troops. Also, Alexander favored open field Cavalry and Heavy Infantry combat as opposed to tight-quarters combat where the enemies numbers could become more effective. The Persian Satraps' denied the requests of their field-commanders to place their army in the hills and cliffs above the river Granicus to slow the Greek charge. Out of a mis-placed code of honor, the Macedonian army lost almost every experienced General they had in that one battle at the gateway to Asia-Minor. Once this battle was complete, Alexander would not have to step onto a battlefield of seasoned warriors until he entered Egypt, and they greeted him as a liberator and named him Pharaoh.
While not much is known of the author of the treatise on military strategy, "The Art of War," Sun-Tzu did unite three of the seven kingdoms of China, and his son and grandson went on to help unite the remaining four and compose works of military strategy that are still used by the Chinese military today. In one ancient text, a battle of Sun-Tzu was recorded by Liu Hsiang (80-9 B.C.): "The reason why Sun Tzu at the head of 30,000 men beat Ch`u with 200,000 is that the latter were undisciplined." This accomplishment alone dwarfs any major battle that Alexander ever fought in assuming that this account is correct. Many scholars believe that "The Art of War" was actually not written by Sun-Tzu, but was translated and rewritten from an earlier 13 chapter scroll by a later author. Regardless of this fact, the truth remains that the ancient Chinese were far superior at battlefield tactics and management than the Greeks - or the Egyptians, Persians, or any other standing army at that time.
Learn more about this author, Travis Dean.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
