|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Three Kingdoms article.|
|Three Kingdoms has been listed as a level-4 vital article in History. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as B-Class.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This article has an assessment summary page.|
|A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day... section on December 11, 2013 and December 11, 2014.|
- 1 Lead
- 2 population of China
- 3 Manpower figures
- 4 Plagiarism
- 5 Portraits from Koei games?"
- 6 Regarding 'The Way of Peace'
- 7 Start-end
- 8 References
- 9 Three Kingdoms Era
- 10 Cao Cao receiving Emperor Xian
- 11 Economic/Political causes of the war
- 12 Translation
- 13 don't understand
- 14 Attention Needed Tag
- 15 detailed map
- 16 Sinocentrism (China-centrism) and potential anti-British-Isles bias?
- 17 Serious time and date contradiction
- 18 Paper on the The Kingdoms and Western Jin
population of China
Does anybody have any good (or any) sources for the population of china during the Three Kingdoms period? From the few sources I have, the population is reported to have decreased from around 56 million in the Eastern Han dynasty to around 16 million in the Western Jin dynasty. However this conflicts with the numbers listed in Population subsection of the Tripartite of China section (I don't think there's a big population increase from the Three Kingdoms to Western Jin).
- I've just noticed this too. There's a huge discrepancy between the census figure of 56 million declining to 16 million as compared to the total population of the Three Kingdoms given as just 7 million! Especially considering the Han Dynasty article confirms that the Three Kingdoms encompassed the whole of China.
- So it seems clear that either one set of figures or the other is very very wrong. I'm guessing the census figures are correct (the whole of China with a pop. of just 7 million???) but if someone could provide a full source for these figures - or indeed any other estimates on the page - it would be very useful, thanks. Until then, I think I am going to have to put citation tags on these figures. Gatoclass 12:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- I guess the numbers are for civilians, not officers and militants, and did not count the population in Tuntian system. Chen Qun's estimation in 233-236 states that the population of the whole Wei Kingdom was only comparable to the population of a province in the Western Han. Qiu Songzhi's annotation of Sanguo Zhi noted that at the time of the surrender of Shu (263), Shu had a total of 940,000 civilians, 120,000 militants and 40,000 officers. When Wu surrendered to Wei, Wu had 2,300,000 civilians, 230,000 militants, and 32,000 officers. Simao Biao's Sequel of the Book of Han probably only counted the civilians, and gave a population of 5,372,891 at 263 for Wei and Shu combined. Du You's Tongdian summarized these records and set the population at 7,672,881, which is obvious incomplete. Besides, pretty much like native Americans, minor nomadic tribes did not count, in the Hukou system, so did those immigrants worked under the Tuntian system. The Book of Jin records a population of 16,163,863 at 280, probably included those in the Tuntian system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skyfiler (talk • contribs) 16:04, August 27, 2007 (UTC)
- prehap with the warring period, they would not allow for as detail a census as during the imperial Han period, for population whom were displaced to rural region were probably missing from the records. there is no point administrating when they got nothing left to tax anyway... :\ Akinkhoo (talk) 23:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
The fall in recorded population reflects a decline in administrative effectiveness - the ability to count people - more than any real drop in population. Entenman (talk) 02:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)entenman
Contention about the accuracy of the Han and Jin population census should be listed here with the dispute centered about the work of Bielenstein stating that population count only included those who are taxable, and assuming that the taxable population represented only 30% of the entire population counted, when other empirical evidence have proven this to be untrue. I would first like to see the passage from Bielenstein presenting the case where the Jin measurements for population is incorrect and how it defers from the Han methods of measurements, and what empirical method Bielenstein used to come to such a conclusion. We can start the investigation here, please include a short and accurate summary of Bielenstein arguments or the complete summary on my talk page as that would be most helpful, since I do not possess the source material to Bielenstein's work myself. Almaz89 (talk) 14:26, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- The argument that the 16 million figure counts only the taxpayers is ludicrous and comes from a very basic misunderstanding of how the tax system works at that time. The number of households is the most accurate way of counting taxes, while headcount could be useful for military conscription and for use in poll taxes which naturally includes the majority of the population. The economic system during this period was still primarily run on bartering and commodities and therefor taxation could only legitimately be levied on a select number of people. As for the Jin who counted over 2 million household and over 16 million taxpayers, that is if we are to assume the sources provided by the previous editor as accurate, that assertion will still defy all logic. Lets assume the impossible case where they calculated potential taxpayers among every household, that would mean each household having 7 taxpayers which would be an impossible toll to sustain for a single household with little land or productivity, therefor it must be assumed that there was indeed an attempt to count every individual instead of just taxable households.The fact that there was such a large reduction of household numbers proves a correlation to mass depopulation, a loss of territories, or migrations, and that the 16 million figure cannot be counted from tax records as opined. The Jin did attempt to account for all citizens not just households, but every person who had been displaced. Though the census to account for overall population will not be accurate, as we only have the household comparison to reasonably go by through historical records, we can safely assume that it is actually as good an estimation as any to use when determining the entire population under the Jin jurisdiction at that time.
Sorry, I must revert you purely per procedure: You did not cite your book specifically enough as opposed to the sourced paragraphs you were trying to replace: Di Cosmo's book here is a compilation of essays and you didn't even name the essay you cited, let alone the page numbers that snuge purveyor (talk · contribs) duly provided in his edit. Without going into the population argument itself, what I am seeing is, at best, a cherry-picking of the source that aligns with your views and throwing other the others; and at worst your original interpretation of primary sources against those of established academia. We at Wikipedia hold verifiability as one of our guiding principles, so no matter how right you think you are or how ludicrous Bielenstein was, we simply cannot take your word against the scholars -- not until you adequately provide your own source that specifically says Bielenstein and the others who support him were wrong. _dk (talk) 20:18, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- But I am citing Bielenstein revised work, I will quote you the source, Bulletin (Östasiatiska museet), no. 59. Chinese historical demography A. D. 2 - 1982 Page 17. In which he concluded that the Government in AD 280 did attempt to count all individuals not just taxpayers as snuge purveyor (talk · contribs) claimed, so I can only assume that it was not a correct interpretation by that user, or Bielenstein has changed his mind and revised his findings in a later version of his work and as for Di Cosmo's book, no opinions there, just facts from original historical records, I could cite any other sources and it will still be the same. Almaz89 (talk) 07:03, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
"In terms of manpower, the Wei was by far the largest, retaining more than 660,000 households and 4,400,000 people within its borders. Shu had a population of 1,940,000, and Wu 2,300,000. Thus, Wei had more than 58% of the population and around 40% of territory. With these resources, it is estimated that it could raise an army of 2,400,000 whilst Shu and Wu could manage 840,000 and 930,000. "
The figure used is questionable: 2,400,000 Soldiers from 4,400,000 people? 840,000 Soldiers from 1,940,000 people? 930,000 Soldiers from 2,300,000 people?
These are the correct figures from Sanguo Zhi. In times of war, usually the maximum population that can be drafted into the army is around 10%.
Wei, 660,000 Households, 4,400,000 People, possibly 440,000 soldiers can be drafted. When Shu surrendered, the record indicated 280,000 Households, 940,000 people, and 100,000 strong standing army. When Wu surrentdered some twenty years later, the record indicated 523,000 Households, 2,300,000 people, and a standing army of 230,000. --188.8.131.52 1:40, 7 April 2006
- These are not my figures; these were figures that were previously given. You changed them without citing sources. Now that you've cited sources, go ahead and reinstate your changes if you so wish, and we'll let the community at large decide what to do with them. I'm no sociological historican. --Nlu (talk) 16:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
People need to realize that a decline in population is not always attributed to war. While it cannot be denied that alot of people were killed, to argue that the population decline was attributed strictly from incessant warfare is quite illogical. Depopulation could have also occured from inaccurate census taking or migrations. Alot of Chinese civilians could have migrated out of China.As for the census, considering that this was a time of constant warfare, the census takers were probably incompetent or a good portion of the population did a good job of avoiding registration for taxes. These are just plausible things to consider.
There are also many natural disasters that occured throughout the history which could contribute to the decline in population. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 12:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
This article is almost completely copied-and-pasted from that site. They even borrowed the images.
- No, it's the other way around. They got it from Wikipedia. Look at the bottom of their page. -- ran (talk) 00:31, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
Great. Now I feel stupid.
- Don't... everyone misreads something now and then. And welcome to Wikipedia. ;) -- ran (talk) 23:30, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
Portraits from Koei games?"
I'm not too familiar with copyright and fair use rules, so could someone please clarify if I (or anyone else) could use an image of a character from the Koei historical figure the character portrays?
RealmKnight 00:51, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
as long as the person cites the page there is no problem. to cite a page can be easy but it can be hard in easy terms all you have to do is example:let's say where it says picture there's a picture and all you have to say is picture taken from and you write the website
picture picture taken from Koei.com
is it possible to take screenshots from the koei game?(win 95 game) i'm not too sure how to take screenshots & potraits though.
As long as the person cites the page, I see nothing wrong. And, in my opinion, using koei art/pictures really shouldn't do any harm at all. Especially if we're talking about major figures of that period. I doubt that some people who have played the koei games would actually research about this history. But if they do, at least, with the game pictures, they will easily recognize who is who and give them a better look at each place or figure during this period. Educating the young with something they are familiar with seems like a good way to get them to learn anything at all. --SeijiX (talk) 19:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- You may not see anything wrong, but using a game's portrait to decorate a historical article does not fall within the definition of acceptable use of non-free content on Wikipedia. _dk (talk) 00:02, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Regarding 'The Way of Peace'
I thought it was 'The Essential Arts of Peace'? Or was that just something as portrayed by Luo Guanzhong?
i believe "the way of peace" is the translation for “太平道”, guess the Chinese for "The Essential Arts of Peace" is "太平要术"? if so, it was a book which Zhang Jiao claimed he obtain it from an immortal, said to be contained magical spells and things like. i forgot if it was fabricated by Luo ,or Zhang Jiao really boasted the book in history.
The article says: "In a strict academic sense it refers to the period between the foundation of the Wei in 220 and the conquest of the Wu by the Jin Dynasty in 280."
Wouldn't the Three Kingdoms start in 222, when the third kingdom (Wu) was founded, and end when the first kingdom (Shu) ended, in 263? In 220-221 it was only two kingdoms, and after Shu's downfall it was only two kingdoms. Unless someone disagrees, I'm going to change it to 222-263. --Cao Wei 00:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
The Three Kingdoms era is now generally accepted to be the periods of time in which at least one of the three titular kingdoms existed, rather than the time in which they coexisted. The period is marked from the creation of the first of the kingdoms (220) to the end of the last of the kingdoms (280). This was the opinion one of the Romance of the Three Kingdoms commentators offered (I believe Mao Zonggang, though I cannot confirm this.) So while I understand your point, I believe that the general consensus is that it covers the era from 220-280 - the start of the first kingdom to the fall of the last. Of course, if anybody can find evidence to suggest that it refers to 222-263 instead, I will gladly advocate the change. Benjitheijneb (talk) 22:01, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
- Depends on if you are talking about the three kingdoms (Wei, Shu, and Wu) or the time that these states existed. Other than that they should be the same meaning. _dk (talk) 05:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
moved from "Talk: Three Kingdoms Era":
- The 3 Kindoms of China is called "Period" not "Era". Please stopy revert my redirect. KEIM (talk) 16:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KEIM (talk • contribs)
- Era is used for long period of time in history. The Chinese 3 kingdoms lasted only a short time, while the 3 Kingdoms of Korea lasted for several centuries. Era is for Korea. KEIM (talk) 02:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Cao Cao receiving Emperor Xian
Economic/Political causes of the war
Reading this article gives me very little feeling about the underlying causes of the wars. The article simply portrays powerful emperors vying for power, without giving us any idea why the people felt a need to give their loyalty to their leaders and follow them into war. It would be like portraying the U.S. Civil war as a power struggle between Lincoln and Jefferson Davis, without mentioning slavery or tariffs. There's one brief section that tells us that the boundaries of the three empires reflected genuine economic divisions, without giving even the slightest hint about what those divisions actually were. This kind of information is far more important in understanding an era than telling about what battles were fought and whom was overthrown by whom. —MiguelMunoz (talk) 16:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- I partly agree with you but in my cynical way I believe it was a bunch of raw grabbing for power no matter how much the Emperors and generals invoked the Mandate of Heaven. There should be some reliable third party sources that discuss this but again cynically I'm sure you can find sources on both sides of the question. The kingdoms weren't participative democracies and if your senior family members or overlord told you to go fight, you did. It's like in the Roman Empire, the paterfamilias had the right of life and death over his sons and daughters and the sons' wives and children while the married daughters fell under the rule of the head of their husbands' households. On the other hand, read the Romance of Three Kingdoms. I'm pretty sure the mass desertions by the troops reflect that they were conscripts, not volunteers for the most part in other words that it's pretty true to nature. Further the boundaries shifted constantly as one general or another grabbed a particular city. That's the kind of thing you go to a reliable history book for, not an encyclopedia.
- Even if that's all true (and I don't have any major quarrel with it), I still feel that the genuine economic divisions between the Kingdoms probably played an important role (and were probably a motive for the attempted power grabs) in the causes of the war, and the article should do a little more than mention them in passing. —MiguelMunoz (talk) 05:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm about to begin the requested translation from the Chinese version. The current English page is fairly well-developed: which sections in particular need the additional material from the Chinese page? EDIT: The current English page is actually a giant historical summary that is erratically and confusingly divided into headings and sub-headings. I'll translate Section 1 of the Chinese page now, then compare it with our current English page and see what the English page might have in terms of additional details. White whirlwind (talk) 21:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- Excellent. I agree with your view of the English page. I hope the Chinese page also presents an intelligible section on the causes of the wars. —MiguelMunoz (talk) 11:04, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
|This article contains a translation of 三国 from zh.wikipedia.|
I've translated some parts of the population from zh-wiki. Others can have some checks of what I've translated.(User Aronlee90) 09:20, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
"and the beginning of a break in the forthcoming 300 years of chaos." forthcoming means something that's about to occur. Was the Jin empire chaotic? If this is a reference to the Three Kingdoms period, the word should be "foregoing" or better yet "preceding." 220.127.116.11 (talk) 14:14, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
The Jin Empire was indeed chaotic, with the War of the Eight Princes being fought in its early days and with the 16 Kingdoms existing as rivals to the empire. After the Jin Dynasty fell, the Southern and Northern Dynasties kept China in disunity until the succession of the Sui Dynasty, which finally saw the unification of China, almost exactly 300 years after the fall of Wu. You are quite right: this point is VERY unclear, and I agree that this information should be added in. However, I am not entirely well-acquainted with Chinese history outside of the Later Han-Three Kingdoms era, so I would suggest that someone with more knowledge than me provides some information. Benjitheijneb (talk) 22:12, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Attention Needed Tag
I have added the attention needed tag on account of the low number of sources (3) for this article. This isn't enough for something this important. I might be able to work on it in a few weeks from now, during Christmas vacation, but I also have a very long to do list that needs just as much attention. Sven Manguard Talk 07:56, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
zhwiki uses quite a flashy, detailed map at File:三国行政区划(繁).png which shows regions, cities and significant events; would it be reasonable to create a translation and use it within this article? I'm thinking that it would be better if we had such a map at the beginning of the article. -- | —Talk contribs email 10:35, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- If you can find that map in a vector image format, it would be much, much, easier to change all the text. siafu (talk) 14:58, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Sinocentrism (China-centrism) and potential anti-British-Isles bias?
Serious time and date contradiction
The "South of the Yangtze" subsection starts as follows:
In 193, Huang Zu led Liu Biao's forces into a campaign against Sun Jian (Yuan Shu's subordinate general) and killed him.
However, the article on Sun Jian, and the article on his better-known son Sun Quan seem to disagree, saying that Sun Jian died in 191. This could potentially throw the entire dating of the section in disarray, so someone with access to sources, please read the section and uncover the truth. Yannis A. ✆|☑ 14:23, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- The year of death is in dispute. This is the case where the best sources disagree. Talk:Sun Jian has more details. However mentioning this dispute would probably cause WP:UNDUE. I think we should say something vague like "Shortly after 191" to avoid getting into details. --Skyfiler (talk) 22:14, 5 June 2014 (UTC)