by John Devera

Created on: August 14, 2008   Last Updated: September 17, 2009

In 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.