By “the rest of the paragraph” do you mean the parenthetical paragraph? I regret including it. Carrying capacity is important, but my first point is more important. I should have stopped with the three sentences of disclaimers saying I really mean what I say. It really is as simple as people subtracting incomparable censuses. It really is as idiotic as saying that 400 million people died at the stroke of midnight, because of the stroke of a pen.
No, by “the rest of the paragraph” I mean “I am not … your sources are complete garbage”. (I did comment on the carrying-capacity thing, but that was separate.)
An ignorant perusal (e.g., mine) of the Wikipedia article gives the impression (1) that someone who has a clue about this stuff has claimed that those wars were incredibly deadly (suggesting either that subtracting the censuses isn’t as hopeless as it sounds, or else there’s other reason to think so besides the censuses) and (2) that the people who did the later census—the one with the smaller numbers—did try quite hard to make sure they didn’t miss anyone (so in so far as they succeeded, the apparent loss of numbers estimated from the censuses would have to be an underestimate).
On 1, WP cites four sources. Two look very unscholarly, to say the least, but the other two seem superficially credible enough. Are they just plain wrong? On 2, a single source is cited that again looks kinda-credible, but I have no way of checking whether the source says ”… so subtracting these censuses can’t give much too large a figure for the loss of life” or something more like ”… but although the Jin did their best, bless their little cotton socks, it seems likely that they unerestimated by a factor of 4″. I was hoping that you might answer my questions looking for more specificity, and help me distinguish between the hypotheses (1) that although you can’t expect to get useful results from subtracting those census results there’s other good reason to think there was a huge loss of life during the Three Kingdoms period, (2) that actually there are ways to get useful information from comparing the census results, and (3) that actually the only reason to think there was huge loss of life is the comparison of census results, which is just as hopeless as it sounds like it might be.
(#3 is very plausible prima facie, but that Wikipedia article seems like some evidence for #1-or-#2. I am well aware that Wikipedia articles can be wrong, hence my request for more specifics that might clear the matter up. There’s some interesting but inconclusive discussion on the article’s talk page.)
Every discussion of death toll I have ever seen is a simple subtraction of the two censuses.
The two censuses were more than a century apart, in 157 and 280, so they cannot tell you anything about killing. Going in the opposite direction, if the killing is spread out over time, it could easily kill twice population with no net effect.
I think 10% killed counts as “incredibly deadly.”
Yes, there is a line in wikipedia claiming that the Jin census was high quality, but other people claim that it was low quality. In fact, what that line really tells you is the existence of people claiming that it was low quality.
This is where we get back to something I said a few comments upthread: if there were losses anything like as big as the censuses suggest, they seem like good evidence of major government incompetence even if they had nothing to do with war.
but other people claim that it was low quality
No doubt. There would be some people claiming high quality and some people claiming low quality regardless of the actual facts, I take it.
The later census reports about 1⁄4 as many people as the earlier. For China not to have lost at least, say, 1⁄3 its population, it seems like (1) the later census must have been really bad, or else (2) it must have been counting a markedly smaller notional population (e.g., some territory having been lost). I haven’t seen anything suggesting that #2 was the case (and have seen it explicitly claimed that it wasn’t); is that wrong?
If not #2 then #1, but that again seems improbable prima facie. Do you have good reason to think it’s wrong?
I’m just trying to understand the basis for your very uncompromising claim: “your sources are complete garbage”. Because it seems strange to me that nothing you’ve said so far either gives good support for that claim or indicates that you have good support for it. I’m not claiming you haven’t, for the avoidance of doubt. It’s just that, well, you seem to be conspicuously avoiding offering any support beyond the observation that comparing censuses could give misleading results.
By “the rest of the paragraph” do you mean the parenthetical paragraph? I regret including it. Carrying capacity is important, but my first point is more important. I should have stopped with the three sentences of disclaimers saying I really mean what I say. It really is as simple as people subtracting incomparable censuses. It really is as idiotic as saying that 400 million people died at the stroke of midnight, because of the stroke of a pen.
No, by “the rest of the paragraph” I mean “I am not … your sources are complete garbage”. (I did comment on the carrying-capacity thing, but that was separate.)
An ignorant perusal (e.g., mine) of the Wikipedia article gives the impression (1) that someone who has a clue about this stuff has claimed that those wars were incredibly deadly (suggesting either that subtracting the censuses isn’t as hopeless as it sounds, or else there’s other reason to think so besides the censuses) and (2) that the people who did the later census—the one with the smaller numbers—did try quite hard to make sure they didn’t miss anyone (so in so far as they succeeded, the apparent loss of numbers estimated from the censuses would have to be an underestimate).
On 1, WP cites four sources. Two look very unscholarly, to say the least, but the other two seem superficially credible enough. Are they just plain wrong? On 2, a single source is cited that again looks kinda-credible, but I have no way of checking whether the source says ”… so subtracting these censuses can’t give much too large a figure for the loss of life” or something more like ”… but although the Jin did their best, bless their little cotton socks, it seems likely that they unerestimated by a factor of 4″. I was hoping that you might answer my questions looking for more specificity, and help me distinguish between the hypotheses (1) that although you can’t expect to get useful results from subtracting those census results there’s other good reason to think there was a huge loss of life during the Three Kingdoms period, (2) that actually there are ways to get useful information from comparing the census results, and (3) that actually the only reason to think there was huge loss of life is the comparison of census results, which is just as hopeless as it sounds like it might be.
(#3 is very plausible prima facie, but that Wikipedia article seems like some evidence for #1-or-#2. I am well aware that Wikipedia articles can be wrong, hence my request for more specifics that might clear the matter up. There’s some interesting but inconclusive discussion on the article’s talk page.)
Every discussion of death toll I have ever seen is a simple subtraction of the two censuses.
The two censuses were more than a century apart, in 157 and 280, so they cannot tell you anything about killing. Going in the opposite direction, if the killing is spread out over time, it could easily kill twice population with no net effect.
I think 10% killed counts as “incredibly deadly.”
Yes, there is a line in wikipedia claiming that the Jin census was high quality, but other people claim that it was low quality. In fact, what that line really tells you is the existence of people claiming that it was low quality.
This is where we get back to something I said a few comments upthread: if there were losses anything like as big as the censuses suggest, they seem like good evidence of major government incompetence even if they had nothing to do with war.
No doubt. There would be some people claiming high quality and some people claiming low quality regardless of the actual facts, I take it.
The later census reports about 1⁄4 as many people as the earlier. For China not to have lost at least, say, 1⁄3 its population, it seems like (1) the later census must have been really bad, or else (2) it must have been counting a markedly smaller notional population (e.g., some territory having been lost). I haven’t seen anything suggesting that #2 was the case (and have seen it explicitly claimed that it wasn’t); is that wrong?
If not #2 then #1, but that again seems improbable prima facie. Do you have good reason to think it’s wrong?
I’m just trying to understand the basis for your very uncompromising claim: “your sources are complete garbage”. Because it seems strange to me that nothing you’ve said so far either gives good support for that claim or indicates that you have good support for it. I’m not claiming you haven’t, for the avoidance of doubt. It’s just that, well, you seem to be conspicuously avoiding offering any support beyond the observation that comparing censuses could give misleading results.