Seismic activity as a sign of the last days

Originally posted by Kegge
Perhaps you all should decide first whether you're talking about absolute or relative numbers before deciding which century was the most murderous one?

Yes, as a fraction of World Population.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
The 19th Century, for instance. The Great War (later named WW1) was not a sudden upheaval of a peaceful time where hobbits lived peacefully in the shire - it was merely a continuation of the countless wars that were fought before it - a trend that was, at least in most of the industrialized world, halted after WW2.

For inspiration, here is a list of ...[text shortened]... involving_the_United_Kingdom#United_Kingdom_of_Great_Britain_and_Ireland_.281801.E2.80.931922.29

you are claiming the nineteenth century was more murderous than the twentieth, are you really?

Forty-five million unnatural deaths would be 1% of 4.3 billion deaths (or 1 out of every 96), considerably less than the percentage for the 20th Century. Counting the famines would bring the percentage to 2% or 1 out of 48.

http://necrometrics.com/wars19c.htm

lets see you keep reality out now.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
you are claiming the nineteenth century was more murderous than the twentieth, are you really?

Forty-five million unnatural deaths would be 1% of 4.3 billion deaths (or 1 out of every 96), considerably less than the percentage for the 20th Century. Counting the famines would bring the percentage to 2% or 1 out of 48.

http://necrometrics.com/wars19c.htm

lets see you keep reality out now.

The funny part is all you religious types thinks there is nothing wrong with that. Your alleged god lets all those poor folks die dreadful painful deaths at the hands of despots like Idi Amin or Pol Pot or Tamerlane and not a frigging peep out of your so-called god.

I cannot imagine a REAL deity seeing all that carnage and at the same time supposedly this loving caring god, would not do something about it, write a sky smoke message, SOMETHING. But NOOOO, Nada, zip, nuttin.

It just says to me FAKE GOD. MAN MADE deity.

Originally posted by sonhouse
The funny part is all you religious types thinks there is nothing wrong with that. Your alleged god lets all those poor folks die dreadful painful deaths at the hands of despots like Idi Amin or Pol Pot or Tamerlane and not a frigging peep out of your so-called god.

I cannot imagine a REAL deity seeing all that carnage and at the same time supposedly thi ...[text shortened]... ssage, SOMETHING. But NOOOO, Nada, zip, nuttin.

It just says to me FAKE GOD. MAN MADE deity.

umm Pol Pot and the Khmer rouge were actually attempting to establish an atheistic state in Cambodia, just sayin.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
you are claiming the nineteenth century was more murderous than the twentieth, are you really?

Forty-five million unnatural deaths would be 1% of 4.3 billion deaths (or 1 out of every 96), considerably less than the percentage for the 20th Century. Counting the famines would bring the percentage to 2% or 1 out of 48.

http://necrometrics.com/wars19c.htm

lets see you keep reality out now.

You'd do well to read the websites you quote, on one of the pages on that site it has a section entitled "(Possibly) The Twenty (or so) Worst Things People Have Done to Each Other:" it attributes 40 million deaths to Genghis Khan, at the time the World population (given in the next table) was around 400 million, so, according to your source he killed one tenth of the world population.

http://necrometrics.com/pre1700a.htm

Originally posted by DeepThought
You'd do well to read the websites you quote, on one of the pages on that site it has a section entitled "(Possibly) The Twenty (or so) Worst Things People Have Done to Each Other:" it attributes 40 million deaths to Genghis Khan, at the time the World population (given in the next table) was around 400 million, so, according to your source he killed one tenth of the world population.

http://necrometrics.com/pre1700a.htm

strange the link that you gave only includes data for the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries, are you sure you are not mixing Genghis Khan up with Imran Khan the cricketer? Infcat lets take alook at the data for the Great Khan,

Chinggis Khan (ruled 1206-27) 40,000,000 [make link]
Total Dead (in roughly descending order)
Alan McFarlane, The Savage Wars of Peace: England, Japan and the Malthusian Trap (2003, p.50): Chinese population reduced to half in 50 years -- over 60 million people dying or failing to be replaced.
John Man, Genghis Khan: Life, Death, and Resurrection
The Jin (North China) recorded 7.6 million households in the early 13th Century. The first Mongol census in 1234 recorded 1.7 million housholds. Man interprets this as a population decline from 60 million to 10 million. (p.262)
Man make a rough guess that 1.25M people were killed in Khwarezm in two years-- that's 25% of 5M original inhabitants.
Komarova and Korotayev, "A Model of Pre-Industrial Demographic Cycle": Oddly, they skip right over the Mongol invasion ("The Sung cycle was interupted quite artificially by exogenous forces"😉, but Fig. 13 ends with the population of China at about 102M in 1125, while Fig. 14 begins with 55M in 1250, a decline of over 45M.
Matthew White, The Great Big Book of Horrible Things: The Definitive Chronicle of History's 100 Worst Atrocities (W. W. Norton, 2012)
The death toll of 40 million is "Loosely based on McEvedy, Atlas of World Population History. McEvedy states that the population of China declined by 35 million during the thirteenth century. Also, the population decline in the western regions of Mongol conquests adds up to 2.75 million. All in all, it seems that Eurasia had 37,750,000 fewer people in the wake of the Mongols. I’ve rounded that off to avoid faking too much precision." (White, Great Big Book, p.578)
"For now let’s forget the incredible body counts reported for individual atrocities and focus instead on overall estimates from modern demographers. By all accounts, the population of Asia crashed during Chinggis Khan’s wars of conquest. China had the most to lose, so China lost the most—anywhere from 30 to 60 million. The Jin dynasty ruling northern China recorded 7.6 million households in the early thirteenth century. In 1234 the first census under the Mongols recorded 1.7 million households in the same area. In his biography of Chinggis Khan, John Man interprets these two data points as a population decline from 60 million to 10 million. In The Atlas of World Population History, Colin McEvedy estimates that the population of China declined by 35 million as the Mongols subjugated the country during the thirteenth century. In The Mongols, historian David Morgan estimates the Chinese population (in both the north and the south) as 100 million before the conquest and 70 million after." (White, Great Big Book, p.123)
Colin McEvedy, Atlas of World Population History (1978):
China Proper: In the text, he states that the population declined by 35 million as the Mongols reduced the country to subjugation during the 13th Century. In the Chart, the population drops from 115M to 85M between 1200 and 1300 CE. (p.172)
Iran: Charted population declined from 5.0M to 3.5M
Afghanistan: from 2.50M to 1.75M
Russia-in-Europe: 7.5M to 7M
This indicates a total population decline of some 37.75 million.
David Morgan, The Mongols, p. 83
He estimates the Chinese population (in both the north and the south) as 100 million before the conquest and 70 million after (citing Langlois, China under Mongol Rule)
MEDIAN: ca. 30 million.
FAQ: Doesn't this include famine and disease? Yes, but why does that matter? The famine and disease were caused by the war, and we customarily include deaths from famine and disease among war dead. The Holocaust? half the victims died from famine and disease in camps and ghettos. The American Civil War? two-thirds of the deaths were from camp disease. The recent Congo War? as much as 80% of the dead were from famine and disease. Andrew Jackson lost three family members to the Revolutionary War, not one of them by bullet. How about the slave trade? Almost all the deaths were caused by hunger, exhaustion and disease, almost none of it deliberate.
R.J. Rummel accuses the Mongols of 29,927,000 democides in the 13th through 15th Centuries.
Allen Howard Godbey, The Lost Tribes a Myth: Suggestions Towards Rewriting Hebrew History, p.385 (1974): "Genghis Khan is estimated to have destroyed twenty million people, Tamerlane twelve million."
Jeremiah Curtin, The Mongols: A History, p.141: "From 1211 to 1223 in China and Tangut alone Jinghis and his assistants killed more than eighteen million five hundred thousand human beings."
Humphrey Clarke, "How Bad Were The Mongols?": [/b]11.5 million[/b] [http://bedejournal.blogspot.com/2011/12/how-bad-were-mongols.html]
The [London] Independent (18 Aug. 2001): >3M died during the creation of Genghis's empire.
Individual Events
Jack Weatherford, Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World (2004)
From the Washington Post's 4/4/4 review of Weatherford's Genghis Khan...: "It's estimated that 15 million died in the Mongols' five-year invasion of central Asia."
Weatherford himself doubts most of these high numbers:
"[N]ot merely exaggerated or fanciful -- they were preposterous."
"[T]he numbers have no basis in reality."
Persian chronicles report 1,747,000 k. a Nishapur
1,600,000 killed at Herat in one estimate. An est. by Juzjani gives 2,400,000 k. at Herat.
"Later, more conservative scholars place the number of dead from Genghis Khan's invasion of central Asia at 15 million within five years [which] would require that each Mongol kill more than a hundred people." [Actually, in my opinion, that's a weak refutation. Killing a hundred people in five years is quite doable.]
Edward Gibbon, Decline & Fall of the Roman Empire, vols.3 & 6
Zingis [Genghis]: conquest of Central Asia: 4,347,000 in 3 cities
Maru: 1,300,000
Herat: 1,600,000
Neisabour [Nishapur]: 1,747,000
Zingis: 160,000 Carizmians [Khwarizmi]
Baghdad: pyramid of 90,000 skulls
Cublai
100,000 Chinese commit mass suicide to escape
100,000 lost in expedition against Japan
Flexner, Pessimist's Guide to History:
1.6M killed in Herat
160,000 of the Shah's troops killed at Bokhara
Britannica 11th ed. (1911) "Jenghiz Khan"
Herat: 1.6M
Battle against Khwarizm: 160,000 Khw. k.

Not merely fanciful but preposterous! no basis in reality, oh dear have our atheistic sapplings appealed to supposition and pure conjecture once again only to have their house of cards come crashing down upon them. So sad. So vewy vewy sad.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
strange the link that you gave only includes data for the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries, are you sure you are not mixing Genghis Khan up with Imran Khan the cricketer?

I don't think Imran Khan is responsible for any deaths. Copy and paste my link into your browser. Scroll down until you get a table with the title "(Possibly) The Twenty (or so) Worst Things People Have Done to Each Other". It attributes 40 million deaths to Genghis Khan (equal with Mao Zedong). Scroll down further and it gives a table of population estimates for centuries going back to 400 B.C.. That is where I got my figures from.

One point, he has total deaths due to warfare divided by total deaths in the Century, rather than just dividing by the average population. This may not be the right thing to do as life expectancy was so much shorter then.

Edit: Are you saying his figures are "not merely fanciful but preposterous" or my statement of 40 million deaths. The 40 million is from his figures, right at the top of the list you quoted. If you think his figures are preposterous, well, he's your source.

Originally posted by DeepThought
I don't think Imran Khan is responsible for any deaths. Copy and paste my link into your browser. Scroll down until you get a table with the title "(Possibly) The Twenty (or so) Worst Things People Have Done to Each Other". It attributes 40 million deaths to Genghis Khan (equal with Mao Zedong). Scroll down further and it gives a table of population ...[text shortened]... population. This may not be the right thing to do as life expectancy was so much shorter then.

Oh dude I've done better than that I posted all the speculation, conjecture, supposition and preposterous estimates that include not only those killed by war, but also famine and disease and natural death, heck Genghis hardly even makes it onto the radar.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
you are claiming the nineteenth century was more murderous than the twentieth, are you really?

Yep - and your link doesn't refute it.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Yep - and your link doesn't refute it.

yes it does, it refutes everything you have ever said about it and everything that you are ever likely to say. You are so busted KazetNagorra, well and truly busted. So sad to see you like this.

Robbie 1 Atheistic saplings 0, gg

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Oh dude I've done better than that I posted all the speculation, conjecture, supposition and preposterous estimates that include not only those killed by war, but also famine and disease and natural death, heck Genghis hardly even makes it onto the radar.

But, that site is the source you are relying on for your claims about the 19th Century being less violent than the 20th. You can't have it both ways, either he's a reliable source or he's not. Which is it?

Originally posted by DeepThought
But, that site is the source you are relying on for your claims about the 19th Century being less violent than the 20th. You can't have it both ways, either he's a reliable source or he's not. Which is it?

Actually the unreliability of the data is not down to the site administration its due to the fact that you are dealing with the 13th century. Look at the huge variance in estimates. Its truly preposterous.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes it does, it refutes everything you have ever said about it and everything that you are ever likely to say. You are so busted KazetNagorra, well and truly busted. So sad to see you like this.

Robbie 1 Atheistic saplings 0, gg

The problem with the score you've put down is that you've forgotten you lost the argument about earthquakes, which the thread started with, and you haven't established that the 19th Century was less murderous than the 20th since childhood mortality contributed significantly to deaths in the 19th. The site gives total deaths in the 19th Century as 4.287 billion and total deaths in the 20th as 5.5 billion deaths. But the population in 1800 was 980 million, rising to 1.26 billion in 1850, by 1900 it was 1.65 billion, 2.5 billion in 1950 and by 2000 it had risen to 6.6 billion.

Using the mid point figures for each century we have a factor of roughly 2 in population, but a factor of 1.3 for deaths. This changes the assessment. Then if we take into account that the tracking of war deaths in the 20th Century was more precise than in the 19th (the writer of the website freely admits that he "probably missed a lot".). Your proof starts to unravel. Further, as we've shown, the middle ages had periods where far more people, as a fraction of world population, died in warfare. So I don't think you've demonstrated an unprecedented rise in either the number of wars or the number of people killed in war.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes it does, it refutes everything you have ever said about it and everything that you are ever likely to say. You are so busted KazetNagorra, well and truly busted. So sad to see you like this.

Robbie 1 Atheistic saplings 0, gg

Actually your site is from an amateur historian who himself claims the figure is a low estimate. Keep trying though.