Why do wars in China always kill an absolutely ridiculous nu

>>1772857
because chinks are a real life "human" version of Zerg

Chinese losses are high but personally I think its like ancient greeks with persians they just slap on numbers for effect.

File: china--taiping-rebellion-granger[1].jpg (281KB, 900x565px) Image search: [Google]

281KB, 900x565px

>>1772857
>ridiculous number of people?
Because compared to the rocky, broken terrain of Europe, China is a riverland civilization based on the Yangtze and the Yellow River, which allowed them to grow enough food to support truly massive populations, and in times of strife and disruption, cause the deaths of untold numbers of people

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Kingdoms
Keep in mind that these figures were spread out over many decades and most of the death came from widespread starvation and disease.
>An Lushan
The common thread that it shares with the Yellow Turban uprising is that it is a revolt against an old dynasty teetering on the brink of collapse due to corruption and internal rot
>Qing Conquest
probably the worst tragedy in Chinese history: the Han were taken over and it completely wiped out the edge that China had over Europe. Ming China was on the verge of an industrial revolution until they were taken over by northern rural isolationists who thought it was more important to police Chinese haircuts than be a participant on the world stage
>Taiping Rebellion
Basically China's version of the (American) Civil War: ancient tactics meets industrialized warfare. A meat grinder ensues.
>Dungan Revolt
That's actually a new one for me. Jesus, Chinese history is depressing.

File: image.jpg (33KB, 350x206px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 350x206px

>>1772857
Same reason the soviets had a huge amount of "deaths" vs the Germans.

They counted them wrong. Any peasant who moved a mile away from his home was ""dead""

File: 1378472119417.jpg (730KB, 1174x1300px) Image search: [Google]

730KB, 1174x1300px

>>1772857
The numbers of the An Lushan Rebellion and to a lesser extent other mass casualty periods like the Three Kingdoms or the Wuhan Uprisings or the Northern and Southern Dynasties after the end of the Tang Dynasty are usually determined by the imperical census.
That means you have somewhat exact numbers being counted before these events and a lot less numbers counted after. Of course that had a lot to do with the simple fact that the centralized authority had just collapsed and it was just not possible anymore to count all areas of the empire. Or that people had moved out of the important cities (where counts were hold) to less important cities (which now lie outside of imperial control) or into the countryside. This somehow translated in later years that all these people had just dissappeared and died. (Of course it was good for the next dynasty to point out just how bloody and chaotic the preceding epoche supposedly was and how nice and orderly everything is now under the new overlords)

Of course that doesnt mean that these events were not bloody as hell; China had a large population so when things turn south it usually does in a grand style. Its just that some of the numbers (An Lushan I'm looking at you) are completely out of proportion.

>>1772890
Its wierd how many people die just because they are there. This shit happens all the time in medieval /ancient Europe where a battle is lost and tens of thousands are killed because the line broke. In China it seems like the same thing happens on a massive scale
>mongols attack half million people with 10k.
>Relatively nothing happens at first
>Chinese line breaks to mass bow fire and Cavalry
>half million men die to under 500 dead mongols
>fucking wut

It just displays how insane panic would get in these battles when you start to lose.

>>1772948
Well, the Mongols made it their policy to kill everyone near and far around a battlefield. Its the same when they took a city that didnt surrender, they did not just sack it they killed every single person in there (or at least the male ones)

That said, these battle numbers are usually extremely overblown. Its the same like with Ottoman battles, where you have a battle that rages the whole day then with their last breath the european troops manage to win the fight und you have a casualty figure of 5 european knights killed versus tens of thousands Turks. Its obviously doesnt make a lot of sense.

File: 1354738197802.jpg (24KB, 512x384px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 512x384px

>tfw there will never be Total war: China edition with massive numbers

>>1773005
dynasty warrior series is pretty good for your chink genocide simulator

>>1773005
That would be fucking dope if they built a total war engine strong enough to realistically simulate 100,000's of soldiers in real time

>>1773021
Dynasty Warriors is cheesy as fuck. The amount of anime-grade wanking makes it fucking nauseating for anyone looking for an even semi-realistic good time.

>>1772857
>Why do wars in China always kill an absolutely ridiculous number of people?
The state apparatus lacked the manpower to conduct a thorough investigation during disunity.

The census goes hand in hand with taxation,there was an incentive to undereport if the government favors smaller households.

Scholar officials noted that censuses under counted(Tang,Ming etc.) hence being unable to discern the hidden/roaming population.

>>1772857
>up to 36,000,000 dead
I know it's "up to", but it's still ridiculous.
>ooga booga there is 36M of difference between the two census, that means 36M are dead

File: remove eggroll.png (352KB, 323x2341px) Image search: [Google]

352KB, 323x2341px

>>1772857
The Mongol Conquest of the Jin and Song also racked some high kill-streaks

>>1773027
>That would be fucking dope if they built a total war engine strong enough to realistically simulate 100,000's of soldiers in real time
>nodev in charge of understanding what an engine is.

>>1772857
China's kind of fucked in general, just look at the Wei-Jie war where they actually exterminated the Jie peoples completely, yes completely, as in a whole group of peoples were wiped out.

or the Guangzhou Massacre, which was essentially Chinese getting triggered by foreign merchants entering the Tang and slaughtering them by the hundred thousand.

>>1772890
India was also a big riverland civilization with huge numbers of people yet none of its wars were even close to the casualty rate China seems to reach.

>>1773366
India's culture is by nature more pacifistic.

>>1773432
The Turks and Mughals were not, yet they never scored as high a kill count as the Qing.

>>1773445
They adapted to the Indian lifestyle. But India in general is pacifistic. Hindu/Buddhists/Jains/sikhs are all relatively pacifistic religion.

>just another day selling goods, heading to province in china since I have a deal there to get rid of some bamboo poles
>finally get there, deliver the bamboo and go to receive the previously agreed upon payment
>this fucking Han undercuts me and refuses to pay the proper amount after I hauled these all the way here
>20,000,000 end up dead
I never asked for this

>>1773445
Well with the Caste system you only really need to pacify the top castes and then the rest just sort of follow by itself in India.

>>1772857
>cites wikipedia
All of the casualty sources from primary sources are government census, which were hugely inaccurate/inflated/padded with famine and disease victims.

>>1773366

India was very rarely unified, and it was quite rare to have the entire subcontinent at war at the same time, or to be touched by it all.

China was far more centralized, for good and for ill.

>Afterwards, Hui mobs attacked Han and other Hui people who had not joined them in revolt. It was this seemingly trivial and unimportant dispute over bamboo poles that set off the full-scale revolt. A Manchu official noted that there were many non-rebellious Muslims who were loyal citizens, and warned the Qing court that exterminating all Muslims would force loyal ones to support the rebels and make the situation even worse. He said, "Among the Muslims, there are certainly evil ones, but doubtless there are also numerous peaceful, law-abiding people. If we decide to destroy them all, we are driving the good ones to join the rebels and create for ourselves an awesome, endless job of killing the Muslims".

>>1774132
Shame they only eliminated the Dzungars. They should have wiped out the Hui and Uighurs as well when they could.

>>1773453
>>1773432

These claims seem dubious in light of the killings in the 19th and 20th century in india, like with the partition

>>1773366
India was rarely a unified entity

>>1773432

lol no

>>1773366
India was also separated from outside influence a lot better than China was. Mongols fucked China's shit a lot more.

>>1774170
By then India was under quite a bit of British influence