Why was the Dzungar Genocide so successful?

During the late 1750s, the Chinese orchestrated a systematic genocide of the Dzungar people and managed to kill 80-90% of the population. According to modern historians, some of those who died during the Dzungar genocide may not have been killed by the Qing but rather by smallpox. However, most modern historians believe that majority of the Dzungar who died did so at the hands of the Qing soldiers. Anyways, this genocide is considered very successful. Michael Clarke said it "amounted to the complete destruction of not only the Dzungar state but of the Dzungars as a people." Additionally, Mark Levine thought of it as "arguably the eighteenth-century genocide par excellence." However, I simply fail to comprehend how in the mid-1700s a country could orchestrate a mass murder on such wide scale and have such "success". So if anyone is more knowledgeable on the period, China, or the genocide, in particular, can you explain this to me.
 
Last edited:
During the late 1750s, the Chinese orchestrated a systematic genocide of the Dzungar people and managed to kill 80-90% of the population. According to modern historians, some of those who died during the Dzungar genocide may not have been killed by the Qing but rather by smallpox. However, most modern historians believe that majority of the Dzungar who died did so at the hands of the Qing soldiers. Anyways, this genocide is considered very successful. Michael Clarke said it "amounted to the complete destruction of not only the Dzungar state but of the Dzungars as a people." Additionally, Mark Levine thought of it as "arguably the eighteenth-century genocide par excellence." However, I simply fail to comprehend how in the mid-1700s a country could orchestrate a mass murder on such wide scale and have such "success". So if anyone is more knowledgeable on the period, China, or the genocide, in particular, can you explain this to me.

I'm no expert, but I assume the Dzungars (or Oirats) were first and foremost a nomadic people, so there were quite few of them in the first place, considering they lived in harsh surroundings, the farthest lands from any sea on planet Earth. When the Qing plunged on them the imperial armies had on their side all the other Mongols (the Khalkha, who would go on to found the modern Mongol nation), so able horsemen in good quantity, the crack Manchu banners (regiments) and Han Chinese troops both numerous and well armed with firearms - which should have been a rarity in the Dzungars' hands. Plus, very likely, the complicity of the local Muslims, the Taranchis, ancestors of today's "Uighurs", who by then had been fighting Buddhists like the Dzungars since some seven centuries and counting.
 
However, I simply fail to comprehend how in the mid-1700s a country could orchestrate a mass murder on such wide scale and have such "success".

Why not? Just look at the Americas. Or anywhere else on the periphery of settler colonial empires. Chinese statecraft, imperialist expansion, and political transition was built on mass scale warfare, and tons of dead bodies. The same as any other state society. It's just that China as a region has and has had a much larger population than just about anywhere else, so things like genocides and wars look more "impressive".
 
The Dzungar Genocide is very resemblant of that of the Native Americans. Another big reason that it was so successful was because Dzungaria was immediately settled by surrounding people, Han Chinese and Uyghur alike, after it was conquered.
 
The Dzungars/Oriats were highly expansionist and had invaded all their neighbors. If it weren't for the existance of a rival nomadic horse archery superpower like the Qing the Dzungars probably would've created another Timurid like empire. The Eastern Mongols wanted them dead, the Uighurs wanted them dead, the Tibetans, the Kazakhs, etc. Not sure how big of a factor this was but by the time the Manchus finally turned the tide on the Dzungars I doubt they could find refugee anywhere.

Genocide isn't particularly difficult on the steppes. You take away a nomads horses, sheep and cattle. Leave them in a wasteland in winter without provisions. Nature takes its course pretty fast.
 
The Dzungar Genocide is very resemblant of that of the Native Americans.

Was it? Generally, the Native Americans were first devastated by diseases for which they had no resistance, and then the Europeans crushed what was left of the population. From what I know of the Dzungar genocide, diseases don't seem to have been a major factor (they wouldn't seem to be, as both populations were native to Asia).
 
Was it? Generally, the Native Americans were first devastated by diseases for which they had no resistance, and then the Europeans crushed what was left of the population. From what I know of the Dzungar genocide, diseases don't seem to have been a major factor (they wouldn't seem to be, as both populations were native to Asia).
Smallpox seems to have played a major role in the genocide. Even the Manchus weren't immune to smallpox (IIRC Emperor Shunzi died to smallpox), so being in Asia perhaps isn't that big of a factor.
 
Last edited:
Smallpox seems to have played a major role in the genocide. Even the Manchus weren't immune to smallpox (IIRC Emperor Shunzi died to smallpox), so being in Asia perhaps isn't that big of a factor.

I don't think so. Dzungars was nomads, so there wasn't concentrated population center to devastate, Since nomads live in large area as a scatered tribes, every outbreak is mostly localized. If Smallbox was indeed such a big wide spread then Uyghurs and Kazakhs also would have been devastated greatly. IMO smallbox is just a excuse to cover their genocide.
 
I'm no expert, but I assume the Dzungars (or Oirats) were first and foremost a nomadic people, so there were quite few of them in the first place, considering they lived in harsh surroundings, the farthest lands from any sea on planet Earth. When the Qing plunged on them the imperial armies had on their side all the other Mongols (the Khalkha, who would go on to found the modern Mongol nation), so able horsemen in good quantity, the crack Manchu banners (regiments) and Han Chinese troops both numerous and well armed with firearms - which should have been a rarity in the Dzungars' hands. Plus, very likely, the complicity of the local Muslims, the Taranchis, ancestors of today's "Uighurs", who by then had been fighting Buddhists like the Dzungars since some seven centuries and counting.
The Dzungars/Oriats were highly expansionist and had invaded all their neighbors. If it weren't for the existance of a rival nomadic horse archery superpower like the Qing the Dzungars probably would've created another Timurid like empire. The Eastern Mongols wanted them dead, the Uighurs wanted them dead, the Tibetans, the Kazakhs, etc. Not sure how big of a factor this was but by the time the Manchus finally turned the tide on the Dzungars I doubt they could find refugee anywhere.

Genocide isn't particularly difficult on the steppes. You take away a nomads horses, sheep and cattle. Leave them in a wasteland in winter without provisions. Nature takes its course pretty fast.

This makes a lot of sense, thank you.

Why not? Just look at the Americas. Or anywhere else on the periphery of settler colonial empires. Chinese statecraft, imperialist expansion, and political transition was built on mass scale warfare, and tons of dead bodies. The same as any other state society. It's just that China as a region has and has had a much larger population than just about anywhere else, so things like genocides and wars look more "impressive".
The Dzungar Genocide is very resemblant of that of the Native Americans. Another big reason that it was so successful was because Dzungaria was immediately settled by surrounding people, Han Chinese and Uyghur alike, after it was conquered.
Smallpox seems to have played a major role in the genocide. Even the Manchus weren't immune to smallpox (IIRC Emperor Shunzi died to smallpox), so being in Asia perhaps isn't that big of a factor.
I don't think so. Dzungars was nomads, so there wasn't concentrated population center to devastate, Since nomads live in large area as a scatered tribes, every outbreak is mostly localized. If Smallbox was indeed such a big wide spread then Uyghurs and Kazakhs also would have been devastated greatly. IMO smallbox is just a excuse to cover their genocide.

Maodern scholars think smallpox played a small role in the Dzungar genocide with most of the deaths resulting from the actions of the Qing and their allies. Hence me mentioning that smallpox did not not kill the majority of the Dzungars and hence me saying "systematic genocide".

Was it? Generally, the Native Americans were first devastated by diseases for which they had no resistance, and then the Europeans crushed what was left of the population. From what I know of the Dzungar genocide, diseases don't seem to have been a major factor (they wouldn't seem to be, as both populations were native to Asia).
I don't think so. Dzungars was nomads, so there wasn't concentrated population center to devastate, Since nomads live in large area as a scatered tribes, every outbreak is mostly localized. If Smallbox was indeed such a big wide spread then Uyghurs and Kazakhs also would have been devastated greatly. IMO smallbox is just a excuse to cover their genocide.

Very much correct.
 
I don't think so. Dzungars was nomads, so there wasn't concentrated population center to devastate, Since nomads live in large area as a scatered tribes, every outbreak is mostly localized. If Smallbox was indeed such a big wide spread then Uyghurs and Kazakhs also would have been devastated greatly. IMO smallbox is just a excuse to cover their genocide.


Don't be too sure about it being a localize phenomenon. Trade routes still existed, and were used. Small pox is highly contagious, and the trade alone will ensure infection. Read "Pox Americana: The Great Smallpox Epidemic of 1775-82" by Elizabeth A. Fenn. She's done some solid scholarship with this book, it's worth a read. Just don't do so if your inclined to depression, as it's quite awful history.
 
The comparison to North America is rather poor. Small Pox wiped out 90% of the Natives in many places.

The Dzungars weren't too populous a people. In a few decades, with all the allies the Qing had, all they had to do was send a lot of troops in over a few years with orders to take no prisoners. On the ground it was probably typical central asian warfare however the Qing, being better armed and w/ central asian allies had an easy time defeating the Dzungars. All it took was time and probably a little bit of money.
 
Smallpox also affected the Europeans and blacks, and directly influenced the Revolutionary War and previous conflicts. It wasn't simply the Amerinds that were affected. The comparison of Amerind trade routes (particularly of the horse cultures in the west) with those of the Dzungars is also valid.
 
Small Pox wiped out 90% of the Natives in many places

I'm fairly certain that fatality rate wasn't from smallpox alone, but from a combination of influenza, measles, bubonic plague, typhus, and about half a dozen others, on top of the deaths from their widespread social collapse and battles against the Europeans.
 
Don't be too sure about it being a localize phenomenon. Trade routes still existed, and were used. Small pox is highly contagious, and the trade alone will ensure infection. Read "Pox Americana: The Great Smallpox Epidemic of 1775-82" by Elizabeth A. Fenn. She's done some solid scholarship with this book, it's worth a read. Just don't do so if your inclined to depression, as it's quite awful history.

If you knew Mongolian nomad life you would have understand what I mean. Nomads don't live in town or settlements. Most of them live in small group of 10 or 20 people, which is secluded from others 50-100 km. And from November to March they remain secluded from outside world almost 3-5 months. If there is any contact it is very few and far between. The Mongolian weather which is extremely cold also helps to not spread diseases. In Mongolia we had many Pneumonic plague epicenters, but it never spread as pandemic.
Now I'm not saying smallbox is not made impact. But it wasn't major factor Dzungarians become near extinct. Maybe some Dzungarian built settlements indeed affected by smallbox maybe 10%-15% of population dead from it.
My argument is if smallbox indeed was such a pandemic, then why Uyghurs who lived in cities had not affected? Why Kazakhs who lived beside Dzungars not affected? Why Mongols who lived beside Dzungars not affected? And Manchu troops who occupied Dzungaria here too.
 
I'm fairly certain that fatality rate wasn't from smallpox alone, but from a combination of influenza, measles, bubonic plague, typhus, and about half a dozen others, on top of the deaths from their widespread social collapse and battles against the Europeans.

Good point, I don't know why I mentioned only small pox.

Either way European diseases wiped out many of the Indians. Whereas here this isn't the case since the Dzungars would have been exposed to a disease like small pox for a while.
 
If you knew Mongolian nomad life you would have understand what I mean. Nomads don't live in town or settlements. Most of them live in small group of 10 or 20 people, which is secluded from others 50-100 km. And from November to March they remain secluded from outside world almost 3-5 months. If there is any contact it is very few and far between. The Mongolian weather which is extremely cold also helps to not spread diseases. In Mongolia we had many Pneumonic plague epicenters, but it never spread as pandemic.
Now I'm not saying smallbox is not made impact. But it wasn't major factor Dzungarians become near extinct. Maybe some Dzungarian built settlements indeed affected by smallbox maybe 10%-15% of population dead from it.
My argument is if smallbox indeed was such a pandemic, then why Uyghurs who lived in cities had not affected? Why Kazakhs who lived beside Dzungars not affected? Why Mongols who lived beside Dzungars not affected? And Manchu troops who occupied Dzungaria here too.


Good points on the other peoples not being infected.
 
First of all, blaming "the Chinese" for the Qianlong's Zhunghar genocide was like blaming the Poles for the Holocaust. The war was certainly portrayed as a Chinese Imperial victory by Qing courtiers like Wei Yuan, but it was fought primarily by Manchu and Mongol Bannermen.

I think it's primarily because the Manchus were quite effective in bringing the Russians, the Kazakhs and the Uyghurs into their war against Zhungharia, so the Zhunghars could not flee the Qing first and return to the region after the Qing left.

I'm not sure how true was Wei Yuan's account that 40% of the Zhunghars died of smallpox, 20% fled to Russia and Kazakhia, another 30 percent killed by Qing soldiers, as compared to Zhaolian's account that 30% died of smallpox, 30% fled to Russia and Kazakhia, and 50% killed by Qing troops.

The numbers above did not take into account of Zhungars captured by the Uyghurs, Zhunghars dispersed and hid in the woods, or the small number of Zhunghar incorporated into the Qing Banner system.

Didn't the Qing authors have incentives to count Zhunghar deaths as the Imperial army's work, and depress the number died in smallpox.
 
Top