Casualties of the Three Kingdoms War

[Syt]

According to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_by_death_toll

During the Three Kingdoms War 184-280 AD the site claims 36-40 million dead in China, plus 3-7 million from the Yellow Turban Rebellion.

I know that China had a high population at the time, but those numbers seem very high for the time period. Does anyone know any good sources for this, and whether this is (broadly) accurate?

[Valmy]

Even for a period of 100 years that seems ridiculous. But then I am not too familiar with that war, was there mass civilian genocide going on?

[Syt]

That's the only explanation I could think of, besides plagues/starvation.

By comparison, the Punic Wars had < 2M dead, and I presume that includes destroying the city of Carthage.

[garbon]

The page on that war suggests that will many were killed as casualties of warfare, many of the deaths are attributable to famine and plaque due to the collapse of effective government.

It also says a bunch about the lack of reliability of Chinese population figures.

[Monoriu]

From what I have read in Chinese, there was very drastic decline in population from the end of the Han dynasty to the Three Kingdoms period.  The sources that I have read generally cite declines in the range of 80-90%.  So yes, only 10-20% of the pre-war population is left.  First, Han is one of the most successful and prosperous dynasties in Chinese history.  So population reached a peak then, resulting in a high base figure.  The collapse of Han resulted not just in warlordism, but also in widespread famine and loss of most government functions.  The warlords engaged in mass killing and forced movement of millions, further adding to the death toll.

[Admiral Yi]

many of the deaths are attributable to famine and plaque

Don't forget the gingivitis.

[Barrister]

many of the deaths are attributable to famine and plaque

Don't forget the gingivitis.

the silent killer.

[grumbler]

many of the deaths are attributable to famine and plaque

Don't forget the gingivitis.

Killed all the redheads in China, so there are none today. 

[HisMajestyBOB]

From what I have read in Chinese, there was very drastic decline in population from the end of the Han dynasty to the Three Kingdoms period.  The sources that I have read generally cite declines in the range of 80-90%.  So yes, only 10-20% of the pre-war population is left.  First, Han is one of the most successful and prosperous dynasties in Chinese history.  So population reached a peak then, resulting in a high base figure.  The collapse of Han resulted not just in warlordism, but also in widespread famine and loss of most government functions.  The warlords engaged in mass killing and forced movement of millions, further adding to the death toll.

My understanding is that the population numbers come from the censuses, and at least some of the drop is due to some territories no longer being under central control and differences in how population was counted. Not all, but some.

[PDH]

many of the deaths are attributable to famine and plaque

Don't forget the gingivitis.

Killed all the redheads in China, so there are none today. 

And that is why, as George Carlin said, you don't meet too many Chinese guys named Rusty.

[citizen k]

It also says a bunch about the lack of reliability of Chinese population figures.

"Their numbers are vast!"

[The Minsky Moment]

The Han Dynasty registries indicate a peak population of 50-60 million, which is also consistent with the official numbers from the Tang through Ming dynasties.  (Pop started climbing significantly under the Qing).

I think it's reasonable to believe that China was capable of supporting a pre-industrial population in the 50-60 million range, if not more, and hence that is a reasonable number for the Han Dyansty at its height.

On that basis 36-40 million dead in Three Kingdom War seems very high and I would agree what is likely being captured here is a sharp reduction in the number of settled areas recording population in an official way. 

[Razgovory]

80-90% seems awfully high.  The Thirty years war killed 30-40% of the population of Germany and it's considered one of the most devastating wars in European history.  Killed the 80-90% of the population seems like it would be hard to do.  Most people in a pre-modern world were farmers and don't rely that much on central government.

[Josquius]

80-90% seems awfully high.  The Thirty years war killed 30-40% of the population of Germany and it's considered one of the most devastating wars in European history.  Killed the 80-90% of the population seems like it would be hard to do.  Most people in a pre-modern world were farmers and don't rely that much on central government.

I guess though with Germany you still had surrounding countries which were relatively unaffected, and though Germany may have had armies marching across it tearing it apart every other year, food could still get in from overseas.
First millenium China pretty much stood alone.

[Razgovory]

80-90% seems awfully high.  The Thirty years war killed 30-40% of the population of Germany and it's considered one of the most devastating wars in European history.  Killed the 80-90% of the population seems like it would be hard to do.  Most people in a pre-modern world were farmers and don't rely that much on central government.

I guess though with Germany you still had surrounding countries which were relatively unaffected, and though Germany may have had armies marching across it tearing it apart every other year, food could still get in from overseas.
First millenium China pretty much stood alone.

How much food do you think that destitute rural peasants were importing?  If anything, the fact that surrounding countries were relatively unaffected would indicate more damage.  Armies were less affected by the decline in resources in Germany since they were payed and supplied by outside entities.