Thread music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MaCazf36D3k

>>286580

Let me put it this way.

In 154, before the Three Kingdoms civil war, the Han census reported 55.4 million people.

In 280, when the Jin Dynasty had (more or less) clawed their way into re-unification, the population was at 16.1 million.

So, over 70% of the country gone.

>>286580
Well if you like sentimentalisation skewing the narrative to the point of eisegesis, try Burns' baseball and new york.

>>286590
How did this start? Maybe we can make it happen again.

>>286635
You think Burns is overly sentimental?

>>286645

At a very survey level:

>Han tax system was inefficient as fuck, and was primarily based around land taxes, driving smaller landowners off of their farms and simultaneously shrinking the tax base due to how the system was set up.
>Han government was broke at the same time a huge as rebellion broke out because you have a bunch of landless peasants who are highly pissed off.
>With no money to raise forces, the Han allows the various regional governors and local nobility to raise their own forces.
>Said forces put down the rebellion.
>And then promptly ignore the central government whenever the Emperor wants them to do anything.


Almost overnight, "China" broke up into about a hundred little states, each with a petty king and a primitive government, all trying to claw their way into Empire once again.

>>286652
Burns is so sentimental he leaks the old cause, baseball, northern racism, new york provincialism, and coastal liberalism.

>>286714
That's an interesting take I guess.

>>286714
What's wrong with sentimentalism?

Besides, he's merely the presenter and typically historians and others are brought in for the sake of commentary.

>>286736
You structure your narrative sentimentally, and then you interview historians sentimentally for sentimental purposes.

What's wrong with sentiment is that it is a deliberate intervention into the texts arising not from the texts or theory but from the personality of the historian.