Population of the Tibetan Empire

Mar 2012
4,319
#32
I am tired of your patronizing tone.
Maybe if you display something remotely resembling an acdemic attitude and stop with the damn strawmans, I wouldn't be using it.

Speculation is your particular forte where you seem to think of Tibetan as numerically illiterate people who cant differentiate between one thousand and ten thousand.
More lame strawmans. It's you who seem to think Tibetans can't tell the difference between one thousand and ten thousand. But the author of Bka thang sde lnga isn't a moron like you think he is, because unlike you, his mind can comprehend the difference between names and reality.


You are ignoring the written accounts, the geography and common sense.
Just what is this so called common sense of yours? Assuming that an administrative unit having the exact same number of households throughout centuries is an utter lack of common sense. The written accounts are not clear what the size of a stong sde is, but there are plenty of hints at armies much larger than just 40,000.


You also seem to never have never been to Tibet because that would make your Speculation about the population numbers quite strange.
Why do you need to go to Tibet to know the population count of the entire region? Do you think you being there have more authority than modern census?

For the last time :

I am talking about the early empire period when manpower was extremely limited and the Tibetan state did not have many vassals. The greatest victories of the early imperial Yarn Lungs were made without much outside help.
Which part of the fact that the Tibetan Empire in 670 is bigger than the empire was in 750 do you not catch? Why do I have to post the same thing multiple times before you read it? In 670, Tibet has Little Balur, the Koko Nor, and part of the Tarim Basin, in 750, Tibet did not have any more territory than it did in 670, but did not have Balur, Koko Nor, or any part of the Tarim Basin.



The Tibetans conquered (not raided) the Anxi corridor (for 20 years ) and Tyuhoon (permanently) after (not before) the battle of Da feichuan. There was no way an army of 200 hundred thousand strong Tibetan army at that period.
Get your basic history facts right. The Tuyuhun was conquered in 663, and the Tang only invaded Da Feichuan BECAUSE the Tibetans took the Anxi garrison (which they did not hold for 20 years, because the Tang recovered them by 673, losing them again in 678, regained them in 679, lost them again in 687 and regained them finally in 692), not as a result of it. Even if the Tibetan hold on Tuyuhun strengtened in the early 8th century, do you honestly believe the army size can multiply by nearly ten folds just because of that? You are the one who should use some common sense.
 
Jul 2014
1,493
world
#33
I am tired of explaining the obvious to an idiot but i will try on because as you called me .. I am a moron,:)


"Why do you need to go to Tibet to know the population count of the entire region? Do you think you being there have more authority than modern census? "

"Just what is this so called common sense of yours? Assuming that an administrative unit having the exact same number of households throughout centuries is an utter lack of common sense. The written accounts are not clear what the size of a stong sde is, but there are plenty of hints at armies much larger than just 40,000. "

If you had even been once to Tibet you will not make so senseless a statement .

Tibet is not India or mainland China with arable land and low altitudes where towns can become cities. Almost every inhabited place in Tibet is an old one. There are almost no new cities and villages in Tibet because there are no suitable lands for it. Even though Tibetan plateau is vast and there are few areas of greenery the arable land is quite finite and quite minimal at that.

Why do you believe in 5 chronicles only ? Btw doesnt five chronicles also say Tang emperors was a vassal of the Tibetans ?
And get this through your head... There was never an army of 400 thousand strong Tibetan army. It was just typical Tang excuses to save face.


"Which part of the fact that the Tibetan Empire in 670 is bigger than the empire was in 750 do you not catch? Why do I have to post the same thing multiple times before you read it? In 670, Tibet has Little Balur, the Koko Nor, and part of the Tarim Basin, in 750, Tibet did not have any more territory than it did in 670, but did not have Balur, Koko Nor, or any part of the Tarim Basin. "

Size is not everything. We are not talking about the size but demography. Mongolia is almost one third the size of China and has a population of 3 million. If we go by your theory mongolia should have 400 million population.

Tibetan empire did not have Nanzhao as a vassal in 670. The Nanzhao provided the most soldiers of all the vassals. Empire did not have Ladakh or any of the central asian vassals.Even the zschangzschung areas were rebelling around that time. The only big ally of the Tibetan in 670 AD were eastern Turks and they were a spent power by that time.
 
Jul 2014
1,493
world
#34
I found an interesting titbit.

In 660 the Tibetan Empire and their Turkic allies attacked Shule. The Tibetan Empire also attacked Wakhan to the protectorate's southwest. When the Tang general boasted of the size of his army, Gar Tongtsen Yulsungs son responded in the following manner:

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 Tang general is boasting about the size of his army and the son of the Tibetan general is admonishing him saying that size is not every thing. I do not seen him boasting about the huge Tibetan armies that Tang historians made up.

Gar Tongtsen Yulsung was the great minister and general in the Tibetan empire. This man was the second most powerful man in the Tibetan empire.
 
Jul 2014
1,493
world
#35
I found an interesting titbit.

In 660 the Tibetan Empire and their Turkic allies attacked Shule. The Tibetan Empire also attacked Wakhan to the protectorate's southwest. When the Tang general boasted of the size of his army, Gar Tongtsen Yulsungs son responded in the following manner:

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 Tang general is boasting about the size of his army and the son of the Tibetan general is admonishing him saying that size is not every thing.

Gar Tongtsen Yulsung was the great minister and general in the Tibetan empire. This man was the second most powerful man in the Tibetan empire.
 
Mar 2012
4,319
#36
I am tired of explaining the obvious to an idiot but i will try on because as you called me .. I am a moron,:)
Maybe if you learn how to read, as you've demonstrated your ineptness in that area again and again, you'll waste less of your own time. Pay attention to what I actually said: "But the author of Bka thang sde lnga isn't a moron like you think he is, because unlike you, his mind can comprehend the difference between names and reality. "

I did not call you a moron, I just pointed out that if we use your line of reasoning, you are accusing the author of the Bka thang sde lnga as a moron for not being able to tell the difference between 1,000 and 10,000 because he is the one who recorded 36 stong sde as having 300,000-400,000 soldiers. You are not a moron yourself, you just can't read.





If you had even been once to Tibet you will not make so senseless a statement .

Tibet is not India or mainland China with arable land and low altitudes where towns can become cities. Almost every inhabited place in Tibet is an old one. There are almost no new cities and villages in Tibet because there are no suitable lands for it. Even though Tibetan plateau is vast and there are few areas of greenery the arable land is quite finite and quite minimal at that.
What senseless statement? That the Tibetan Plateau can have 3-4 million people? Do you know the population of the Tibetan plateau today is about 7.5 million, with 3.4 million in the TAR and 3.7 million in Qinghai outside of Xining, and around 300,000 in Ladakh? Or are you oblivious to that when you made your own senseless statement?
For starters, I've been to the Tibetan Plateau plenty of times; I've even lived near the Labrang monastery for over a month. I just didn't talk about it because its utterly irrelevant to the topic. Secondly, you must be an intuitive genius if you can tell how much people Tibet has total by just being there, or just outright delusional. Unless you've been to every part of Tibet and surveyed every inch of land and made a census count, then you simply cannot know what the population is by just being there (and it still doesn't refute the fact that the plateau can support 3-4 million people). No offense, but its just an utterly yes, senseless comment on your part.

Why do you believe in 5 chronicles only ? Btw doesnt five chronicles also say Tang emperors was a vassal of the Tibetans ?
And get this through your head... There was never an army of 400 thousand strong Tibetan army. It was just typical Tang excuses to save face.
I didn't. You are making strawmans again. Read my lips. I didn't say the Tibetans had an exact number of 400,000 forces, I just said we do not know what the exact size of their force is, but its most likely much larger than the 40,000 (or even 61,000) that is speculated, as the Tibetan garrisons recorded in Tang sources combined would already be larger than that, and later Tibetan sources verifies a stong sde can be larger than 1,000. You are just making this conversation repetitive.



Size is not everything. We are not talking about the size but demography. Mongolia is almost one third the size of China and has a population of 3 million. If we go by your theory mongolia should have 400 million population.

And where is your source that the Tibetan population grew exponentially from 670-750? That's right, you don't have a source.


Tibetan empire did not have Nanzhao as a vassal in 670. The Nanzhao provided the most soldiers of all the vassals.
Nor did the Tibetan Empire have Nanzhao as a vassal in 747. Nanzhao only submitted to Tibet in 751, and only after 755 did the Tibetans really exert some real power over them. So your point?


Empire did not have Ladakh or any of the central asian vassals.Even the zschangzschung areas were rebelling around that time. The only big ally of the Tibetan in 670 AD were eastern Turks and they were a spent power by that time.
Tibet already captured Wakhan sometimes in the 660s (beyond Ladakh, see Beckwith 1987). On the other hand Tibet lost little Balur to the Tang in 747 and Koko Nor to the Tang in 750. Tibet had even less central asian vassals or allies in 750, as the Tang occupied the four garrisons in the Tarim as well as the Turgesh (successor of western Turks), so your comparison still doesn't address the fact that the empire in 750 is actually smaller than it was in 670.
 
Last edited:
Mar 2012
4,319
#37
I found an interesting titbit.

In 660 the Tibetan Empire and their Turkic allies attacked Shule. The Tibetan Empire also attacked Wakhan to the protectorate's southwest. When the Tang general boasted of the size of his army, Gar Tongtsen Yulsungs son responded in the following manner:

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 Tang general is boasting about the size of his army and the son of the Tibetan general is admonishing him saying that size is not every thing. I do not seen him boasting about the huge Tibetan armies that Tang historians made up.

Gar Tongtsen Yulsung was the great minister and general in the Tibetan empire. This man was the second most powerful man in the Tibetan empire.

First, the Tibetans did not yet capture the Tuyuhun in 660, so they were smaller in number than they were in 670. Second, even a force of 200,000-400,000 is still smaller than the total number of soldiers the Tang can mobilize, so it doesn't prove anything. The argument here isn't that the Tang probably exaggerated the Tibetan army at Dafeichuan and Wuhai, no one here took these numbers at face value, its whether the Tibetan army's mobilization potential was just 40,000, and I already gave the reason why its most likely not limited to such a size.
 
Last edited:
Jul 2014
1,493
world
#38
"Maybe if you learn how to read, as you've demonstrated your ineptness in that area again and again, you'll waste less of your own time. Pay attention to what I actually said: "But the author of Bka thang sde lnga isn't a moron like you think he is, because unlike you, his mind can comprehend the difference between names and reality. "

I did not call you a moron, I just pointed out that if we use your line of reasoning, you are accusing the author of the Bka thang sde lnga as a moron for not being able to tell the difference between 1,000 and 10,000 because he is the one who recorded 36 stong sde as having 300,000-400,000 soldiers. You are not a moron yourself, you just can't read. "

Listen Genius ... 5 Chronicles is a religious book concerning Padmasambhava and almost everything written in the book is to exalt him. Its not government census. If you believe that a religious book is equal to a government census in regards counting population numbers than I am not calling you an idiot. You are not an idiot, you just cant think logically.

"Do you know the population of the Tibetan plateau today is about 7.5 million, with 3.4 million in the TAR and 3.7 million in Qinghai outside of Xining, and around 300,000 in Ladakh? Or are you oblivious to that when you made your own senseless statement?
For starters, I've been to the Tibetan Plateau plenty of times; I've even lived near the Labrang monastery for over a month. I just didn't talk about it because its utterly irrelevant to the topic. Secondly, you must be an intuitive genius if you can tell how much people Tibet has total by just being there, or just outright delusional. Unless you've been to every part of Tibet and surveyed every inch of land and made a census count, then you simply cannot know what the population is by just being there (and it still doesn't refute the fact that the plateau can support 3-4 million people). No offense, but its just an utterly yes, senseless comment on your part. "


The entire plateau had around 2 million Tibetan population in the 1950s. 2 million. Get it ?
Modern day Tibetan population of 7 million owns its origin to modern medical and infrastructure improvements.

Oh so you stayed near Labrang ... while I a native Tibetan have been just about every where TIbetans live. Gansu, Sichuan, QInghai, Yunnan and TIbet. I know my geography and I can read these magic thing called maps and census which gives me data in regards to population and many other things.

You are delusional if you think Tibetan inhabited regions can support more population than 2 million without modern medical and infrastructure.



"And where is your source that the Tibetan population grew exponentially from 670-750? That's right, you don't have a source. "

When or Who is saying that Tibetan population grew exponentially from 670 to 750 AD? What are you on about?


"Nor did the Tibetan Empire have Nanzhao as a vassal in 747. Nanzhao only submitted to Tibet in 751, and only after 755 did the Tibetans really exert some real power over them. So your point?

Tibet already captured Wakhan sometimes in the 660s (beyond Ladakh, see Beckwith 1987). On the other hand Tibet lost little Balur to the Tang in 747 and Koko Nor to the Tang in 750. Tibet had even less central asian vassals or allies in 750, as the Tang occupied the four garrisons in the Tarim as well as the Turgesh (successor of western Turks), so your comparison still doesn't address the fact that the empire in 750 is actually smaller than it was in 670. "

So what if the empire was smaller in 750 AD?
My point is that Tibetan empire in the 8th century was a very different creature to the 7th century one. It is you who is obsessed about size not me. To me demography is more important and The empire of the 8th century had lot more resources to draw upon than the 7th century.

By 8th century Tyuhun, Sumpas and Zschanshungs have been assimilated and they identified as Tibetans. in the 670 AD they werenewly conquered and rebelling against the Empire and in case of Tyuhun outright helping Tang invasion.

Tibetan in 670 AD had no strong allies while the Tibetan empire of 700's had some very strong allies like the Turgesh and Nanzhao who provided huge resources. Do you understand what I am saying now ? Size is not everything. Demography is.
 
Jul 2014
1,493
world
#39
"First, the Tibetans did not yet capture the Tuyuhun in 660, so they were smaller in number than they were in 670. Second, even a force of 200,000-400,000 is still smaller than the total number of soldiers the Tang can mobilize, so it doesn't prove anything. The argument here isn't that the Tang probably exaggerated the Tibetan army at Dafeichuan and Wuhai, no one here took these numbers at face value, its whether the Tibetan army's mobilization potential was just 40,000, and I already gave the reason why its most likely not limited to such a size. "

It is only the Tang historians who are babbling about the huge Tibetan armies. I don't see the Arabs or Turks or Nanzhaos mentioning gigantic Tibetan armies. It doesn't exist except in fertile imagination of the Tang historians looking to make excuses.

I have already proven by census records old and new that Tibetan plateau cannot sustain any population that could field armies of the size mentioned by the Tang empire. I have provided Tibetan census of 652 AD and census of 1950 AD. I have provided many historians view point.



About 360 stongde claim :

‘The 360 khab stong-sde served as soldiers and border [guards]’,
appears to be nothing more than an embellishment. There are two well-attested
traditions of thousand-districts in Tibet. The earlier tradition counts forty-four, while
the later tradition counts sixty-one (infra, {3.2.1}). Thus 360 thousand-districts seem
too astronomical to warrant serious consideration.

Administration and Law in the Tibetan Empire:
The Section on Law and State and its Old Tibetan Antecedents


Brandon Dotson
 
Last edited:
Mar 2012
4,319
#40
Listen Genius ... 5 Chronicles is a religious book concerning Padmasambhava and almost everything written in the book is to exalt him. Its not government census. If you believe that a religious book is equal to a government census in regards counting population numbers than I am not calling you an idiot. You are not an idiot, you just cant think logically.
For the fifth time, I didn't say I believe the census in the book was a reflection of real history. Maybe if you learn how to read, you wouldn't distort my statements. You accused me of saying Tibetans are idiots who can't tell the difference between 1,000 and 10,000 when I said nothing of the sort. The author of Bka thang sde lnga is a Tibetan and he made the claim that 36 stong ste can be 300,000-400,000, so if anything its you who think Tibetans are idiots who can't tell the difference. One more strawman, and I promise I will have the moderator step in to settle your distortion of my statements.



The entire plateau had around 2 million Tibetan population in the 1950s. 2 million. Get it ?
Modern day Tibetan population of 7 million owns its origin to modern medical and infrastructure improvements.
You clearly haven't visited Tibet in the 1950s. The Tibet you live in today is modern, which has over 7 million people, so this mean you haven't been to the Tibet that only had 2 million people and hence have no experience of it. This ultimately means that whether you've been to Tibet itself is completely irrelevant to being able to tell how many people lived in Tibet. Your incoherent logic is self defeating, if not altogether non-existent. You are relying just as much on census and records as me.


Oh so you stayed near Labrang ... while I a native Tibetan have been just about every where TIbetans live. Gansu, Sichuan, QInghai, Yunnan and TIbet. I know my geography and I can read these magic thing called maps and census which gives me data in regards to population and many other things.
You are delusional if you think Tibetan inhabited regions can support more population than 2 million without modern medical and infrastructure.
Whether you are native or not does not change the fact that you still have to rely on the census to tell Tibetan population. Just being in Tibet does not give you the intuitive special powers to know. It's that simple.

You are delusional if you think Tibetan inhabited regions can support more population than 2 million without modern medical and infrastructure
And you are basing this on what exactly? An actual demographic analysis or just your baseless opinion? If you have a demographic analysis, cite it or quit treating your worthless opinion as if its authority.



When or Who is saying that Tibetan population grew exponentially from 670 to 750 AD? What are you on about?
You said the Tibetan empire in the early 8th century is different from the Tibetan empire in 670 and hence Tang records of large Tibetan garrisons in the early 8th century doesn't reflect Tibetan mobilization potential in 670. I said the Tibetan empire is even smaller in 750 than 670, and there are no evidence population grew exponentially from 670-750. The context of the statement is clear if you bothered to read.

So what if the empire was smaller in 750 AD?
My point is that Tibetan empire in the 8th century was a very different creature to the 7th century one. It is you who is obsessed about size not me. To me demography is more important and The empire of the 8th century had lot more resources to draw upon than the 7th century.
Which is why I asked you what is the evidence that the Tibetan empire in the mid 8th century had more population than the 7th century, or what else do you mean by resources?


By 8th century Tyuhun, Sumpas and Zschanshungs have been assimilated and they identified as Tibetans. in the 670 AD they werenewly conquered and rebelling against the Empire and in case of Tyuhun outright helping Tang invasion.
Tibetan in 670 AD had no strong allies while the Tibetan empire of 700's had some very strong allies like the Turgesh and Nanzhao who provided huge resources. Do you understand what I am saying now ? Size is not everything. Demography is.
No they weren't. We still hear Tuyuhun units in the 8th century as well as Oghuz Turkish auxiliars in the Tibetan army. Read the sources before you comment. The Tibetans were already mobilizing Sumpas in the 7th century. The 60 (61 to be exact) stong ste Warren Smith talked about included the Sumpas and Zhangzhun.
Nanzhao was not a Tibetan ally until 754, and the Turgesh armies were never confused with Tibetan armies in any Tang source.
 
Last edited: