Sorry, this is a request for information, not a provision of it. I have heard that the 20th century actually compares well to previous centuries in regards to deaths from war or atrocity in terms of percentage of population killed. That is, despite the millions lost to war and genocide in the 20th century it compares well to previous centuries and may even be the 'best' century when it comes to smallest percentage of global population killed from these causes, because global population was/is so high.

I don't have a source and I'm not qualified to evaluate the claim. Now I've gone and repeated it and want to know if I should retract it. I look at Wikipedia and see centuries that were clearly bloodier than the 20th, percentage-wise, but I don't have a framework, like a table showing percentage of global population lost to war by century.

Please instruct me. I know there must be an analysis of this, but my googling skills have failed me.

Interesting question.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wa ... death_toll

From the list the An Lushan Rebellion

The rebellion spanned the reigns of three emperors, starting during the reign of Xuanzong and ending during the reign of Daizong. The toll of the dead and missing, including those caused by suppression and famine, is estimated at up to 36 million,[8] which would be 2/3 of the total taxroll population at the time. Total world population at the time is estimated at 207-224 million.[9] Numerically, this was one of the the highest toll for any event for nearly 1200 years, along with the severe casualties in China due to the invasion by Kublai Khan, until World War II surpassed these.[10]

There is no doubt that the An Shi Rebellion resulted in a major death toll, however the amount of the population affected is not exactly knowable. The 754 census recorded a population of about fifty-three million people, while the 764 census listed only about sixteen million, or a population reduction of about two-thirds; however the numbers recorded on the registers do not necessarily reflect actual population loss due to the breakdown of the census system during the war, as well as the elimination of various untaxed people from the census rolls.[11]

The only time I've ever heard it mentioned was when Sam Harris compared the percentages killed in 20th century wars, to the percentage of the population that die on average from war in tribal communities.

That was probably where I picked it up. Thanks.

The An Lushan rebellion sounds like a real horror.

akigr8 wrote:Interesting question.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wa ... death_toll

From the list the An Lushan Rebellion

The rebellion spanned the reigns of three emperors, starting during the reign of Xuanzong and ending during the reign of Daizong. The toll of the dead and missing, including those caused by suppression and famine, is estimated at up to 36 million,[8] which would be 2/3 of the total taxroll population at the time. Total world population at the time is estimated at 207-224 million.[9] Numerically, this was one of the the highest toll for any event for nearly 1200 years, along with the severe casualties in China due to the invasion by Kublai Khan, until World War II surpassed these.[10]

There is no doubt that the An Shi Rebellion resulted in a major death toll, however the amount of the population affected is not exactly knowable. The 754 census recorded a population of about fifty-three million people, while the 764 census listed only about sixteen million, or a population reduction of about two-thirds; however the numbers recorded on the registers do not necessarily reflect actual population loss due to the breakdown of the census system during the war, as well as the elimination of various untaxed people from the census rolls.[11]

Does anyone know how 'they' estimate how many people died in a war which happened hundreds/thousands of years ago? It seems to me as though it would have to be a total guess. Also, how do they estimate the world's population from hundreds/thousands of years ago?

The Chinese kept good records. Archeology could reveal cause of death at gravesites and count bodies (or maybe just their gear) at battlefields. It would largely be guesswork, but they could at least set a minimum number with some certainty.

I would recommend a read of 'War Before Civilisation. The Myth of the Peaceful Savage." By Lawrence H. Keely
It has some really good appendices at the back concerning body counts and casualty figures, comparing a whole range of conflicts, ancient and modern, nation state and tribal.
I found it pretty convincing...even the assertion that one stood a better chance of surviving four years as a subaltern in an infantry regiment on the western front in WW1 than surviving four years of tribal conflict in the Papua New Guinea highlands...

Yeah, I've heard that if the death rate for males due to violence was the same as it had been for tribes in PNG 2 billion males would have died a violent death in the 20th century.

As a matter of fact, many of our Histories depend upon ancient written sources for things like body counts. There are many wars and natural disasters that we DO know happened, but which we are gradually coming to realize were either exaggerated, or were under-reported at the time.

We have the same problems today: Viet Nam was infamous for "body count" calculations being the politicized basis for deciding how things were going, as well as for demonstrating for the umpteenth time, that if you measure someone's performance by any single factor, they WILL tend to report that they exceeded what ever they actually accomplished in that area.

I would suggest in your pursuit of this query, that you take into account both the reasons why body counts would matter, and the evolution of technology of warfare, and the evolution of CONCEPTS of warfare.

When it comes to stories of ancient battles, a General and an army who came home proclaiming the total destruction of the entire population of an enemy might have been feted and given huge rewards. Therefore, it was common for inconclusive skirmishes, to be reported as GREAT VICTORIES.
Then as now, the upper leadership of a government depended on the PERCEPTIONS of their subject population, that they were triumphant and in control. They would then, as now, minimize the cost of a conflict, and exaggerate the accomplishments, in order to retain their hegemony. Natural disasters would often be officially described as minimal, when the true death toll would have been politically damaging to the elite, and were exaggerated when the elite wanted to excuse their ineptitude and ineffectual leadership.

War technology changes caused larger than expected casualty rates in many wars. The Civil War here in the U.S. was fought for the most part, using tactics learned from Napoleon fifty years before. The destructive power of available weaponry had advanced considerably, so when Napoleonic attacks were conducted, they failed spectacularly with far greater losses than Napoleon ever experienced. The same thing happened again in WW1, when Civil War Era tactics were tried against the newly distributed Maxim machine guns.

Thus, body counts climb and fall for purely mechanical reasons, as well as for political reasons. Archaeology can sometimes clarify things, but since many ancient remains have long been washed away by time, we really don't have CERTAIN ways to discern the truth.

I commend you on exploring this aspect of the past.