As I already told you in the other thread, this source is medieval, just like the Bka thang sde lnga, so if you believe in this, then why are you denouncing the later? Just because it suits your pre-determined conclusion?
As I already told you in the other thread, this source is medieval, just like the Bka thang sde lnga, so if you believe in this, then why are you denouncing the later? Just because it suits your pre-determined conclusion?
Joined Jul 2014
2,556 Posts | 558+
world
No, its 1954, not 1964, read the damn source.
The first and second census of PRC are considered unreliable. Even the third census have some problems .... any man with an iota of knowledge about China will know about it. Your number is from the second census and mine is from the third. Now read the damn thing before spouting ........ again.
I understood you fine, you are the one who can't read and that's why you are still posting things that's irrelevant to my question. I ask again, where did Dotson say the Tibetans can't mobilize 200,000? Saying 360 stong sde seems too much does not mean Dotson said Tibetans can't mobilize 200,000. Dotson never said a stong sde has to be exactly 1,000 nor did he say Tibet can't mobilize 200,000.
Hey genius ... Read again. Dotson gives more weight to the 44 and 62 stangde part more than your fantastical 360 stang de.
No its not like believing in 2 million men persian army, because we actually have
1) Tibetan sources recording numbers over 200,000
2) Chinese sources with an independently operating (from military) court historian recording head counts.
3) Nomadic states in history with even smaller population capable of mobilizing such forces.[/QUOTE]
........ again. We have more reliable and more frequent report of Tibetan strength being 42 and 62 stang de. Dotson and schwartz laughs at your 36 stangde theory.
The first and second census of PRC are considered unreliable. Even the third census have some problems .... any man with an iota of knowledge about China will know about it. Your number is from the second census and mine is from the third. Now read the damn thing before spouting ........ again.
I understood you fine, you are the one who can't read and that's why you are still posting things that's irrelevant to my question. I ask again, where did Dotson say the Tibetans can't mobilize 200,000? Saying 360 stong sde seems too much does not mean Dotson said Tibetans can't mobilize 200,000. Dotson never said a stong sde has to be exactly 1,000 nor did he say Tibet can't mobilize 200,000.
Hey genius ... Read again. Dotson gives more weight to the 44 and 62 stangde part more than your fantastical 360 stang de.
No its not like believing in 2 million men persian army, because we actually have
1) Tibetan sources recording numbers over 200,000
2) Chinese sources with an independently operating (from military) court historian recording head counts.
3) Nomadic states in history with even smaller population capable of mobilizing such forces.[/QUOTE]
........ again. We have more reliable and more frequent report of Tibetan strength being 42 and 62 stang de. Dotson and schwartz laughs at your 36 stangde theory.
Joined Jul 2014
2,556 Posts | 558+
world
Sure I believe it if you will also believe that Tang emperors and Persian emperors were the vassals of the TIbetans.
Joined Jul 2014
2,556 Posts | 558+
world
The first map is the agricultural map of China and the second/ third is the grassland/pasture land map of China. This is the extent of the agricultural and pastureland development in the 21st century. Now you know why scholars consider the 360 stangde a joke and a Tibetan army of 200000 a gross exaggeration.
Last edited:
Just stop. You simply didn't know that the survey you cited was talking about the population of the TAR only, and not the entire Tibetan Plateau, and you are just trying to save yourself out of your obvious mistake right now; and its embarassing. For starters, let me give you a more detailed clue: in the first year of the ROC, 1911, the Qing Xuantong era census of Tibetan Autonomous Region under the Qing Amban was given at 1,160,756, the population of Chuandian bianwu records the population of Kham at 464,304 in the same period, and the population of Qinghai was given at 637,965 in 1931 (the census conducted under Jiaqing in 1820 for the population east of Kokonor was 860,000, this doesn't even include the rest of Qinghai, but it declined due to the wars the Goloks conducted on the Mongols). The ROC census after 1933 gave Qinghai a population count of over 1 million. Added together, it is around 2.3-2.6 million people, and this is not even including places like Yushu and pre-modern census on nomads always have the tendency to leave out significant numbers of the population. See Lu Yu, Zhongguo Fenshengqu lishi renkoukao, p.1316 for all figures above.
And no, the census of the PRC, even in its early years, is a lot more reliable than any period before that, stop blindly throwing the word "unreliable" onto everything when you're proven wrong.
Genius, you didn't answer my question. I ask again, where did Dotson say the Tibetans can't mobilize 200,000? Saying 360 stong sde seems too much does not mean Dotson said Tibetans can't mobilize 200,000. Dotson never said a stong sde has to be exactly 1,000 nor did he say Tibet can't mobilize 200,000.
No we don't. Cite where Dotson said what you claimed he said or you are putting words in his mouth plain and simple.
Last edited:
So you admit to believing those, that's all I need to know. The point being, the same type of Tibetan sources you used above, are the ones I used which explicitly states that early imperial Tibet had 300,000-400,000 soldiers.
All this map shows is that Tibet is significantly less populated than China proper, nothing more (unless you think the color dark orange on the map automatically means 1 million people, but hey, it wouldn't even surprise me if you are deluded enough to believe that).
It does not show that the Tibetan plateau cannot hold a nomadic/agricultural population of 2.5 million or more (still significantly lower than China proper's 400+ million people); whereas I showed you a census that did count that many people. A population of over 2 million, much of them being nomads has no problem mobilizing 200,000, as nomadic empires in history have consistently done.
Joined Jul 2014
2,556 Posts | 558+
world
Last edited:
"Just stop. You simply didn't know that the survey you cited was talking about the population of the TAR only, and not the entire Tibetan Plateau, and you are just trying to save yourself out of your obvious mistake right now; and its embarassing. For starters, let me give you a more detailed clue: in the first year of the ROC, 1911, the Qing Xuantong era census of Tibetan Autonomous Region under the Qing Amban was given at 1,160,756, the population of Chuandian bianwu records the population of Kham at 464,304 in the same period, and the population of Qinghai was given at 637,965 in 1931 (the census conducted under Jiaqing in 1820 for the population east of Kokonor was 860,000, this doesn't even include the rest of Qinghai, but it declined due to the wars the Goloks conducted on the Mongols). The ROC census after 1933 gave Qinghai a population count of over 1 million. Added together, it is around 2.3-2.6 million people, and this is not even including places like Yushu and pre-modern census on nomads always have the tendency to leave out significant numbers of the population. See Lu Yu, Zhongguo Fenshengqu lishi renkoukao, p.1316 for all figures above.
And no, the census of the PRC, even in its early years, is a lot more reliable than any period before that, stop blindly throwing the word "unreliable" onto everything when you're proven wrong."
Well Mr internet historian, let me burst your bubble.
Tibetan autonomous region under Qing included much of eastern Tibet that is right now in Sichuan. Batang and Derge was under Galden phodrong after 1722 deal with the Qing. That is why Derge and even Ganzi had to pay taxes to Lhasa. So what your ROC 1911 census means is that the population of all of central Tibet plus huge portion of Kham is around one million. It was after Sichuan wars that large portions of Kham came under Xikang.
BTW the only reliable census of the 20th century was the 1983 census and the following ones. Every Sinologists knows that but you can believe what you want. I can give you a link where there are estimated 30 million Tibetans according to a British guy. I can give you many links that states the census of Ganden Phodrang and even the early census of PRC was full of inaccuracies.
Genius, you didn't answer my question. I ask again, where did Dotson say the Tibetans can't mobilize 200,000? Saying 360 stong sde seems too much does not mean Dotson said Tibetans can't mobilize 200,000. Dotson never said a stong sde has to be exactly 1,000 nor did he say Tibet can't mobilize 200,000.
Mr Interet historian,
Dotson doesn't have to state the obvious . LIke you can choose to believe that TIbetans fielded an army of 200000 strong in 672 AD or that the French fielded an army of million strong in Agincourt. The world will laugh at you but its your choice.
And no, the census of the PRC, even in its early years, is a lot more reliable than any period before that, stop blindly throwing the word "unreliable" onto everything when you're proven wrong."
Well Mr internet historian, let me burst your bubble.
Tibetan autonomous region under Qing included much of eastern Tibet that is right now in Sichuan. Batang and Derge was under Galden phodrong after 1722 deal with the Qing. That is why Derge and even Ganzi had to pay taxes to Lhasa. So what your ROC 1911 census means is that the population of all of central Tibet plus huge portion of Kham is around one million. It was after Sichuan wars that large portions of Kham came under Xikang.
BTW the only reliable census of the 20th century was the 1983 census and the following ones. Every Sinologists knows that but you can believe what you want. I can give you a link where there are estimated 30 million Tibetans according to a British guy. I can give you many links that states the census of Ganden Phodrang and even the early census of PRC was full of inaccuracies.
Genius, you didn't answer my question. I ask again, where did Dotson say the Tibetans can't mobilize 200,000? Saying 360 stong sde seems too much does not mean Dotson said Tibetans can't mobilize 200,000. Dotson never said a stong sde has to be exactly 1,000 nor did he say Tibet can't mobilize 200,000.
Mr Interet historian,
Dotson doesn't have to state the obvious . LIke you can choose to believe that TIbetans fielded an army of 200000 strong in 672 AD or that the French fielded an army of million strong in Agincourt. The world will laugh at you but its your choice.
Joined Nov 2010
14,406 Posts | 4,143+
Cornwall
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Duel-Snows-Story-Younghusband-Mission/dp/0719554292
Somewhere in my collection I still have this book, probably read it about 30 years ago. Fascinating insight into the medieval condition of Tibet at the time of the Younghusband expedition of 1903/4, not to mentional the regional politics of British India and the Great Game
Somewhere in my collection I still have this book, probably read it about 30 years ago. Fascinating insight into the medieval condition of Tibet at the time of the Younghusband expedition of 1903/4, not to mentional the regional politics of British India and the Great Game
Joined Jul 2014
2,556 Posts | 558+
world
"So you admit to believing those, that's all I need to know. The point being, the same type of Tibetan sources you used above, are the ones I used which explicitly states that early imperial Tibet had 300,000-400,000 soldiers"
Are you serious ? I am making a joke. I of course do not believe it.Just like I do not believe that the Tibetans fielded an army of 200000 strong in the battle of Da fei chuan.
"All this map shows is that Tibet is significantly less populated than China proper, nothing more (unless you think the color dark orange on the map automatically means 1 million people, but hey, it wouldn't even surprise me if you are deluded enough to believe that).
The map shows the agricultural land which is minuscule compared to Xinjiang let alone central plains. The map shows the pasture land quality.
"It does not show that the Tibetan plateau cannot hold a nomadic/agricultural population of 2.5 million or more (still significantly lower than China proper's 400+ million people); whereas I showed you a census that did count that many people. A population of over 2 million, much of them being nomads has no problem mobilizing 200,000, as nomadic empires in history have consistently done".
What census mr internet historian ? The census of Qing when Qing didnt control anything in Tibet or the census by the pathetic ROC who had to pay protection money to Tibetan tribes ? or the census by the Ganden Phodrang who claims that China has killed 2 million Tibetans ?
I prefer to believe in the census conducted by the PRC government.
btw how do you know that the TIbetans had a population of 2 million in 672 AD when they fielded the supposed 200 thousand strong army ?
Are you serious ? I am making a joke. I of course do not believe it.Just like I do not believe that the Tibetans fielded an army of 200000 strong in the battle of Da fei chuan.
"All this map shows is that Tibet is significantly less populated than China proper, nothing more (unless you think the color dark orange on the map automatically means 1 million people, but hey, it wouldn't even surprise me if you are deluded enough to believe that).
The map shows the agricultural land which is minuscule compared to Xinjiang let alone central plains. The map shows the pasture land quality.
"It does not show that the Tibetan plateau cannot hold a nomadic/agricultural population of 2.5 million or more (still significantly lower than China proper's 400+ million people); whereas I showed you a census that did count that many people. A population of over 2 million, much of them being nomads has no problem mobilizing 200,000, as nomadic empires in history have consistently done".
What census mr internet historian ? The census of Qing when Qing didnt control anything in Tibet or the census by the pathetic ROC who had to pay protection money to Tibetan tribes ? or the census by the Ganden Phodrang who claims that China has killed 2 million Tibetans ?
I prefer to believe in the census conducted by the PRC government.
btw how do you know that the TIbetans had a population of 2 million in 672 AD when they fielded the supposed 200 thousand strong army ?
Joined Apr 2010
50,502 Posts | 11,794+
Awesome
heavenlykaghan and songsten - this is your warning, Knock off the insults and rudeness, or else.
Last edited:
Stop diverting the subject. The only thing that busted was your erroneous claim that the source you cited referred to the entire Tibetan Plateau and that it only had a little over a million people. You said, and I quote,
When I pointed out this was the population of Xizang (TAR) only, you gave me this retort:
"hahaha Genius .. read again. The 1963 census covers central and all the Tibetan inhabited areas."
Now do you accept that the figure you cited only pertain to the TAR? Yes or no. If yes, then you were wrong period. The population of the Tibetan plateau was much higher than just around 1 million and that is the only point that mattered to our discussion.
No. The only portion of Kham which was included in TAR in the census was the Chamdo area. The population of Kham at 464,304 was under the post of Chuandian bianwu 川滇边务 whereas the population of TAR was given under the Amban; two different posts. The point being, you were simply wrong when you thought the figure of 1.2 million referred to the entire Tibetan Plateau.
Also, the figure of over 2 million I talked about above doesn't even include the Tibetans in southern Gansu, the actual Tibetan population was hence even higher.
No offense, but you are not exactly qualified to judge what is obvious. The fact remains that Dotson did not in fact claim what you claimed he said, pure and simple. I already pointed out sources which hinted how a stong sde does not have to be 1,000. You keep insisting it must be 1,000. You have not addressed any of the following points I made:
1) Dafeichuan occured in 670, after the Tibetans conquered the Tuyuhun at Qinghai, and not in 642 during Songtsen Gampo's reign.
2) We have no direct source verifying that a stong sde is exactly a force of 1,000 even if it nominally means such (A tumen is almost never 10,000 even though it meant that in Mongolian).
3) There are both primary Tibetan source (Old Tibetan Chronicle) and medieval Tibetan sources stating that early imperial Tibet can mobilize 300,000-400,000 soliders.
4) Chinese primary sources with head counts of enemies, talking about Tibetan garrisons in the tens of thousands in Amdo and Pamirs alone (in addition to the sources on 200,000 Tibetans at Dafeichuan).
5) Dunhuang documents in Tibetan talking about frontier garrisons (mkhar) in Amdo that can be as big as 10,000 and there are five military commissioners each with at least several of these garrisons alone.
Yet you have no problem believing in this quote:
There is no disputing the matter of numbers. But many small birds are the food of a single hawk, and many small fish are the food of a single otter. A pine tree has been growing for a hundred years, but a single axe is its enemy. Although a river runs ceaselessly, it can be crossed in a moment by a boat six feet long. Although barley and rice grow over a whole plain, it is all the grist of a single mill. Although the sky is filled with stars, in the light of a single sun they are nothing.
- Bregel, Yuri (2003), An Historical Atlas of Central Asia, Brill"
The census of 1953, as I've posted in post # 276 already, and several others. Do you not read or are you not understanding what you've read?
The census of 1953 is conducted by the PRC and they said the population of the Tibetan Autonomous Region's 西藏地方 is 1,273,969, and the entire ethnic Tibetan population of China is 2,775,622. Why are you making me repeating myself?
We don't. You are the one who claimed that pre-modern Tibet cannot sustain that many people or army, and I merely pointed out that it can as census showed. The imperial period productivity is not much different from pre-modern Tibet (if anything, it had a more solid-state structure, so it might well be better at relocating resources) and hence should be able to sustain at least that much people. The only evidence we have of imperial era population of Tibet is from the 13th century source Bka thang sde lnga and it gave an even bigger census count for imperial Tibet. The source gave an upper Ru lag at Gstang to have a population of 360,000 and a lower Ru lag a population of 360,000 as well. For Yas Ru lag, we have an upper and lower Ru of 350,000 respectively. For Dbu Ru, we have an upper and lower Ru of 370,000 each, and for Yo Ru, we have an upper and lower Ru of 350,000 each, with a total of 2.86 million people total for the four Ru combined. This is also before the final conquest of the Sumpa, Zhang Zhun, and Tuyuhun (Azha) and hence does not include Amdo or Kham. This has also been done and I'm just repeating myself.
Joined Jul 2014
2,556 Posts | 558+
world
"Now do you accept that the figure you cited only pertain to the TAR? Yes or no. If yes, then you were wrong period. The population of the Tibetan plateau was much higher than just around 1 million and that is the only point that mattered to our discussion.
No. The only portion of Kham which was included in TAR in the census was the Chamdo area. The population of Kham at 464,304 was under the post of Chuandian bianwu 川滇边务 whereas the population of TAR was given under the Amban; two different posts. The point being, you were simply wrong when you thought the figure of 1.2 million referred to the entire Tibetan Plateau.
Also, the figure of over 2 million I talked about above doesn't even include the Tibetans in southern Gansu, the actual Tibetan population was hence even higher."
Please point where I said that the population of whole Tibetan plateau was 1 million and in what context ? I genuinely don't remember it.
If you are referring to " The population of whole TAR was 1,251,225 in 1964 census conducted by the government. This was after 15 year of communist takeover. 15 years ", I still stand by it. The census was inaccurate but it was still a official census conducted by the government.
I have also told you many times that census of early and mid 20th century in Tibet was full of mistakes. Even the first and second census of TIbet conducted by the government of PRC had faulty methodology and relied upon third persons ( village chiefs/local cadres/former lords). For example the population of Tibet was 1,273,969 in 1952 and 1,251,225 in 1964. The population actually declined in the census. This is where the myth of one million Tibetans killed comes from.
"1) Dafeichuan occured in 670, after the Tibetans conquered the Tuyuhun at Qinghai, and not in 642 during Songtsen Gampo's reign.
2) We have no direct source verifying that a stong sde is exactly a force of 1,000 even if it nominally means such (A tumen is almost never 10,000 even though it meant that in Mongolian).
3) There are both primary Tibetan source (Old Tibetan Chronicle) and medieval Tibetan sources stating that early imperial Tibet can mobilize 300,000-400,000 soliders.
4) Chinese primary sources with head counts of enemies, talking about Tibetan garrisons in the tens of thousands in Amdo and Pamirs alone (in addition to the sources on 200,000 Tibetans at Dafeichuan).
5) Dunhuang documents in Tibetan talking about frontier garrisons (mkhar) in Amdo that can be as big as 10,000 and there are five military commissioners each with at least several of these garrisons alone.[/QUOTE]"
I will address your statement point by point.
1) Tibetans may have conquered Tyuhun but Tyuhun were not willing vassals. They actually instigated the Tang to invade.
2) I agree with you on that actually. I believe Stangde may have actually consisted even fewer families than 1000 families. Just like Tumens were generally always under strength among the mongols. One of the Tibetan factions during Sakya rule (Mongol) had only 800 families when theoretically they should have had at least ten thousand families.
In the late 1800s and early 1900s Derge ( consisting of chamdo/derge/Payi/Horbo) boasted of 44 lords and 87-88 barons under the Derge King. Theoretically each baron had to field an army of 100 warriors but actual strength was much less. When Derge waged war against the Yushu the total force fielded was around 3000 warriors. It should have been 8800 warriors.
3) All the sources you mention originate from the Old Tibetan chronicles. I have provided you with many statements of Renowned and world famous (at least among the Sinologits /Tibetologists) who dismiss them as exaggeration and tall tales.
4-5) Tibetan wood slips in Mazagh Tagh and Miran in Xinjiang shows that Tibetans forts had civilians, including family and merchants. The forts were also settlements which had civilian town prefects and treasury officials. The military Khroms (districts) In Amdo and Dunhuang also incorporated native Aza and Hans into stang de system. So I can believe if Tang officials counted garrisons of ten thousands. According to the wood slips Khotanese provided half of soldiers in watch duty (tschugs). By that we can concur that perhaps half of garrisons were natives.
No. The only portion of Kham which was included in TAR in the census was the Chamdo area. The population of Kham at 464,304 was under the post of Chuandian bianwu 川滇边务 whereas the population of TAR was given under the Amban; two different posts. The point being, you were simply wrong when you thought the figure of 1.2 million referred to the entire Tibetan Plateau.
Also, the figure of over 2 million I talked about above doesn't even include the Tibetans in southern Gansu, the actual Tibetan population was hence even higher."
Please point where I said that the population of whole Tibetan plateau was 1 million and in what context ? I genuinely don't remember it.
If you are referring to " The population of whole TAR was 1,251,225 in 1964 census conducted by the government. This was after 15 year of communist takeover. 15 years ", I still stand by it. The census was inaccurate but it was still a official census conducted by the government.
I have also told you many times that census of early and mid 20th century in Tibet was full of mistakes. Even the first and second census of TIbet conducted by the government of PRC had faulty methodology and relied upon third persons ( village chiefs/local cadres/former lords). For example the population of Tibet was 1,273,969 in 1952 and 1,251,225 in 1964. The population actually declined in the census. This is where the myth of one million Tibetans killed comes from.
"1) Dafeichuan occured in 670, after the Tibetans conquered the Tuyuhun at Qinghai, and not in 642 during Songtsen Gampo's reign.
2) We have no direct source verifying that a stong sde is exactly a force of 1,000 even if it nominally means such (A tumen is almost never 10,000 even though it meant that in Mongolian).
3) There are both primary Tibetan source (Old Tibetan Chronicle) and medieval Tibetan sources stating that early imperial Tibet can mobilize 300,000-400,000 soliders.
4) Chinese primary sources with head counts of enemies, talking about Tibetan garrisons in the tens of thousands in Amdo and Pamirs alone (in addition to the sources on 200,000 Tibetans at Dafeichuan).
5) Dunhuang documents in Tibetan talking about frontier garrisons (mkhar) in Amdo that can be as big as 10,000 and there are five military commissioners each with at least several of these garrisons alone.[/QUOTE]"
I will address your statement point by point.
1) Tibetans may have conquered Tyuhun but Tyuhun were not willing vassals. They actually instigated the Tang to invade.
2) I agree with you on that actually. I believe Stangde may have actually consisted even fewer families than 1000 families. Just like Tumens were generally always under strength among the mongols. One of the Tibetan factions during Sakya rule (Mongol) had only 800 families when theoretically they should have had at least ten thousand families.
In the late 1800s and early 1900s Derge ( consisting of chamdo/derge/Payi/Horbo) boasted of 44 lords and 87-88 barons under the Derge King. Theoretically each baron had to field an army of 100 warriors but actual strength was much less. When Derge waged war against the Yushu the total force fielded was around 3000 warriors. It should have been 8800 warriors.
3) All the sources you mention originate from the Old Tibetan chronicles. I have provided you with many statements of Renowned and world famous (at least among the Sinologits /Tibetologists) who dismiss them as exaggeration and tall tales.
4-5) Tibetan wood slips in Mazagh Tagh and Miran in Xinjiang shows that Tibetans forts had civilians, including family and merchants. The forts were also settlements which had civilian town prefects and treasury officials. The military Khroms (districts) In Amdo and Dunhuang also incorporated native Aza and Hans into stang de system. So I can believe if Tang officials counted garrisons of ten thousands. According to the wood slips Khotanese provided half of soldiers in watch duty (tschugs). By that we can concur that perhaps half of garrisons were natives.
Joined Jul 2014
2,556 Posts | 558+
world
"The census of 1953, as I've posted in post # 276 already, and several others. Do you not read or are you not understanding what you've read? "
The census of 1953 says that the population of Tibet is higher in 1953 than the census of 1964. Do you still believe that was an accurate census ? Jesus Christ.
"The census of 1953 is conducted by the PRC and they said the population of the Tibetan Autonomous Region's 西藏地方 is 1,273,969, and the entire ethnic Tibetan population of China is 2,775,622. Why are you making me repeating myself? "
The census of 1953 says that the population of Tibet is higher in 1953 than the census of 1964. Do you still believe that was an accurate census ? Jesus Christ.
"The only evidence we have of imperial era population of Tibet is from the 13th century source Bka thang sde lnga and it gave an even bigger census count for imperial Tibet. The source gave an upper Ru lag at Gstang to have a population of 360,000 and a lower Ru lag a population of 360,000 as well. For Yas Ru lag, we have an upper and lower Ru of 350,000 respectively. For Dbu Ru, we have an upper and lower Ru of 370,000 each, and for Yo Ru, we have an upper and lower Ru of 350,000 each, with a total of 2.86 million people total for the four Ru combined. This is also before the final conquest of the Sumpa, Zhang Zhun, and Tuyuhun (Azha) and hence does not include Amdo or Kham. This has also been done and I'm just repeating myself."
You wont believe the military district census of the Tibetan empire in 642 Ad. You wont believe the mongol census of 1260s. You wont believe the PRC census of 1964-1983. You wont believe the scholars. Your only source is an quasi religious book. what do you want me to say ? They are all wrong and you are right.
The census of 1953 says that the population of Tibet is higher in 1953 than the census of 1964. Do you still believe that was an accurate census ? Jesus Christ.
"The census of 1953 is conducted by the PRC and they said the population of the Tibetan Autonomous Region's 西藏地方 is 1,273,969, and the entire ethnic Tibetan population of China is 2,775,622. Why are you making me repeating myself? "
The census of 1953 says that the population of Tibet is higher in 1953 than the census of 1964. Do you still believe that was an accurate census ? Jesus Christ.
"The only evidence we have of imperial era population of Tibet is from the 13th century source Bka thang sde lnga and it gave an even bigger census count for imperial Tibet. The source gave an upper Ru lag at Gstang to have a population of 360,000 and a lower Ru lag a population of 360,000 as well. For Yas Ru lag, we have an upper and lower Ru of 350,000 respectively. For Dbu Ru, we have an upper and lower Ru of 370,000 each, and for Yo Ru, we have an upper and lower Ru of 350,000 each, with a total of 2.86 million people total for the four Ru combined. This is also before the final conquest of the Sumpa, Zhang Zhun, and Tuyuhun (Azha) and hence does not include Amdo or Kham. This has also been done and I'm just repeating myself."
You wont believe the military district census of the Tibetan empire in 642 Ad. You wont believe the mongol census of 1260s. You wont believe the PRC census of 1964-1983. You wont believe the scholars. Your only source is an quasi religious book. what do you want me to say ? They are all wrong and you are right.
Let me have an entire post breaking down our conversation and your claims. The conversation began when you claimed this:
"Tibetans had around four hundred thousand total population in the beginning as the imperial census conducted in 642 AD says. I would prefer to believe a government census. That is a primary source as you can get."
I told you the source isn't a census, and Dafeichuan occurred in 670, after the Tibetans already conquered Qinghai and that the population of the Tibetan plateau is usually 2.5 million or more, to which you then gave this:
"Abstract
PIP:
This article describes trends in population growth in Tibet during the Yuan Dynasty (1260-1287), the Qing Dynasty (1734-36), and during decennial periods after 1952, until 1994. Tibet was conquered by the Mongols who founded the Yuan Dynasty in the 13th century. During 1260-87, 3 enumerations revealed a total population of about 559,962 Tibetans, of whom 70,000 were lamas. Enumeration during 1734-36, revealed a total population of 941,151 Tibetans and 138,617 households. Tibet's population increased to about 1 million in 1951, an addition of 60,000 persons over 210 years. During 1952-59, the rate of population growth was fairly low at 0.94%. The total increase was 78,000 persons, or 11,000/year. Population increased from 1.15 million to about 1.23 million during 1952-59. The Dalai Lama went into exile with about 74,000 Tibetans in March 1959. Population during 1960-69 increased from 1.23 million to 1.48 million. The annual growth rate was 1.89%. Population increased by 252,500 persons, or 25.300/year. Reforms were carried out during this period. The region shifted from feudalism to socialism. Tibetans obtained free medical care and access to land. The birth rate was 25/1000, and the death rate was 10/1000. During 1970-79, both economic and population growth increased. Population increased from 1.48 million to 1.83 million, or a rate of annual growth of 2.14%. Population during this period increased by 348,500 persons, or 34,900/year. This was the fastest period of population growth. During 1980-89, the total fertility rate was maintained at around 4 children/woman, and family planning was implemented in urban areas. The annual rate of growth was 1.85%. Population increased by 367,000 persons, or 36,700/year. During 1990-94, the annual growth rate was 1.76 with a total increase of 159,000 persons, or 39,800/year.
Tibet's population: past and present.
Tu D.
China Popul Today. 1997 Aug;14(3-4):4-6.
PMID: 12321528"
Then in post 257 I responded with this:
" The figure you provided above also referred to Central Tibet, not the entire Tibetan plateau. "
Your response to that:
"I have given you the census of 1951 and 1965 which shows how small the population of Tibet was. I have shown you how the very geography of Tibet disallows your genius theory . I have told you that the arable land of Tibet is almost 1/10 of Xinjiang. I have told you the that the majority of Tibetan population was nomadic. "
I responded with this:
"You showed a census of Central Tibet, not the entire Tibetan Plateau, but I guess you don't even know that basic fact yourself. "
Your response:
"hahaha Genius .. read again. The 1963 census covers central and all the Tibetan inhabited areas."
I don't know if you are just being argumentative or just don't know what I'm arguing; because it is very incoherent and downright confusing. Your responses are not addressing my argument that Tibet's population support at least 2.5 million people, if you didn't disagree with that statement, then what you arguing with me about?
Last edited:
Stop mincing words. I showed numerous census pointing to the fact that the Tibetan plateau could support at least 2.5 million people. Do you agree or disagree? That is all there is to it. Either address that or stop talking about something completely irrelevant and make this repetitive and confusing for everyone.
That is irrelevant to the fact that Tibet could call upon Tuyuhun forces by 670, and hence the manpower of Tibet in 670 includes virtually the entire Tibetan plateau; not just central Tibet.
It could also be higher, as the Bka thang sde lnga stated that “The four Ru with 36 stong ste have a total force of 300,000-400,000”. This implies that 36 stong sde had 300,000-400,000 soldiers, implying each stong sde had 8,333-11,111 soldiers.
In any case, if a stong sde does not have to be 1,000, it means it cannot be used as a precise figure to calculate Tibetan military size.
No, I also cited the Bka thang sde lnga and the Mkhas pa ldeus mdzad pai rgya bod kyi chis ‘byung rgyas pa , both recording the Tibetan army at 300,000-400,000.
The OTC just happens to be a primary source. The statements of your Tibetologists does not say Tibet cannot mobilize 200,000. You just assume a stong sde is exacly 1,000 and can't be larger, which none of the historians you cited argued.
Which wood slips? Cite it. Central Asia have actual cities with local settlements, cities such as the Lianyun fortress 连云堡 in Wakhan and Shibao fortress doesn't. They are purely military strongholds in largely barren precipitous terrain that were garrisoned by Tibetan or Tang soldiers and we still hear Tibetan armies in the tens of thousands.
Joined Jul 2014
2,556 Posts | 558+
world
"The OTC just happens to be a primary source. The statements of your Tibetologists does not say Tibet cannot mobilize 200,000. You just assume a stong sde is exacly 1,000 and can't be larger, which none of the historians you cited argued."
OTC is the source of your claims and OTC is a quasi religious book. Once again ... All the sources you mention originate from the Old Tibetan chronicles. I have provided you with many statements of Renowned and world famous (at least among the Sinologits /Tibetologists) who dismiss them as exaggeration and tall tales.
"Which wood slips? Cite it"
But But ...I thought you were a historian and knew about it. My bad.
SIlk road trade, travel, war and faith.
Susan whitfield.
Published in association with the British museum no less.
OTC is the source of your claims and OTC is a quasi religious book. Once again ... All the sources you mention originate from the Old Tibetan chronicles. I have provided you with many statements of Renowned and world famous (at least among the Sinologits /Tibetologists) who dismiss them as exaggeration and tall tales.
"Which wood slips? Cite it"
But But ...I thought you were a historian and knew about it. My bad.
SIlk road trade, travel, war and faith.
Susan whitfield.
Published in association with the British museum no less.
Last edited:
No, Songtsen, the census in 1964 did not show a lower population than that in 1953, do you even read your own sources or do you like to make things up as you go along?
This is from the source YOU cited: "Population during 1960-69 increased from 1.23 million to 1.48 million. The annual growth rate was 1.89%. Population increased by 252,500 persons, or 25.300/year. Reforms were carried out during this period. The region shifted from feudalism to socialism. Tibetans obtained free medical care and access to land. The birth rate was 25/1000, and the death rate was 10/1000. "
Clearly, the author is talking about the TAR region only, and not as you erroneously claimed, the entire Tibetan population. You misread the source, its as simple as that.
I've shown you consistent census that when added up shows that the entire Tibetan Plateau can support at least 2.5 milion people.
I repeat, the enumeration of 642 is purely military, it is NOT a population census. The census of 1260 left out many parts of the population, such as the Lha sde population. Adding them we have at least 700,000-800,000 population in the region of U-Tsang alone. So yes, the PRC census and even the Qing and ROC census are more reliable. The PRC census always counted the Tibetan population to be over 2.5 million, if you say otherwise show me which census gave less numbers than that when adding the TAR, Qinghai, and Kham and give me the population breakdown by these regions.
Last edited:
The OTC is NOT a quasi religious book, it is an imperial chronicle, there is absolutely no religious content in it; have you even read it? The Bka thang sde lnga does not come from the OTC; the former mentions 36 stong sde, not 360 as the OTC does. And I repeat again, the scholars you mentioned does not insist that a stong sde is 1,000, meaning we have no idea what the actual military size of Tibet in 642 is.
From what school have your instructors told you that historians have read every single academic publication? It is your duty to provide the citations when questioned. My bad, you're not actually trained. For starters, you are not citing the passages. That is what historians do, and from the way you purposely distorted the sources on TAR population to mean the entirety of Tibetan plateau, I really do not trust your interpretation of the sources.
Joined Jul 2014
2,556 Posts | 558+
world
"Irrelevant, the discrepancies are minor and does not change the overall head count; furthermore, the 1964 census might well be the one that is underreporting. In any case, it does not change the fact that the census talked about TAR, and not the rest of the Tibetan Plateau. I've shown you consistent census that when added up shows that the entire Tibetan Plateau can support at least 2.5 milion people."
Did you even read what you wrote ? I have in good faith provided you with the government census and you say it is irrelevant.
Your minor discrepancies has bedeviled the PRC for a long time as the Exile government use this data to vilify China. Check out the 1983 census data (the first real accurate census) which shows that even the 1963 census was overcounting the Tibetans.
"I repeat, the enumeration of 642 is purely military, it is NOT a population census. The census of 1260 left out many parts of the population, such as the Lha sde population. Adding them we have at least 700,000-800,000 population in the region of U-Tsang alone. So yes, the PRC census and even the Qing and ROC census are more reliable. The PRC census always counted the Tibetan population to be over 2.5 million, show me which census gave less numbers than that when adding the TAR, Qinghai, and Kham"
You can check out the citation for full detail about the numbers of Lha-sde .
The estate of Sakya clan and the number of Lha-sde:
For the private estate (? dge ru)"' of the Sa-skya nari pa, including
fields, lands and servants, [in the] skor of La-stod Lho
and of Sa-skya ..., 69) summing up all these, the total is 330. dGe
ru Lho-gdon 40 and Bra-ts'a a-btsan 46. [The final sum is] 3630.
These are not included in the myriarchies ".
Central Tibet and the Mongols--the Yuan - Sa-Skya period of Tibetan History
Petech Luciano
So according to Luciano about 3630 ( of whom 330 were Sakyas) Lha-sde were not included into mongol survey.
So if we add 37,203 hor dud + 3630 Lha-sde hor dud = 40833 Hor dud in total .
That means the population of central and western Tibet was roughly 244998.
Even if we add nomads the population wont reach the 700000-800000 like you stated.
Did you even read what you wrote ? I have in good faith provided you with the government census and you say it is irrelevant.
Your minor discrepancies has bedeviled the PRC for a long time as the Exile government use this data to vilify China. Check out the 1983 census data (the first real accurate census) which shows that even the 1963 census was overcounting the Tibetans.
"I repeat, the enumeration of 642 is purely military, it is NOT a population census. The census of 1260 left out many parts of the population, such as the Lha sde population. Adding them we have at least 700,000-800,000 population in the region of U-Tsang alone. So yes, the PRC census and even the Qing and ROC census are more reliable. The PRC census always counted the Tibetan population to be over 2.5 million, show me which census gave less numbers than that when adding the TAR, Qinghai, and Kham"
You can check out the citation for full detail about the numbers of Lha-sde .
The estate of Sakya clan and the number of Lha-sde:
For the private estate (? dge ru)"' of the Sa-skya nari pa, including
fields, lands and servants, [in the] skor of La-stod Lho
and of Sa-skya ..., 69) summing up all these, the total is 330. dGe
ru Lho-gdon 40 and Bra-ts'a a-btsan 46. [The final sum is] 3630.
These are not included in the myriarchies ".
Central Tibet and the Mongols--the Yuan - Sa-Skya period of Tibetan History
Petech Luciano
So according to Luciano about 3630 ( of whom 330 were Sakyas) Lha-sde were not included into mongol survey.
So if we add 37,203 hor dud + 3630 Lha-sde hor dud = 40833 Hor dud in total .
That means the population of central and western Tibet was roughly 244998.
Even if we add nomads the population wont reach the 700000-800000 like you stated.
More History Discussions
Trending History Discussions
-
The Great Captains of History - How Many Battles? - Version 7- Started by DiocletianIsBetterThanYou
- Replies: 861
-
-
The Great Captains of History - How Many Battles? - Version 5
- Started by DiocletianIsBetterThanYou
- Replies: 3K
-
The Diversity Of Early African Architecture/Ruins Thread- Started by Kilwa Sultanate
- Replies: 2K
-