None of which have numbers, strange that...
Maybe they copied from you 4 years ago, in which case you'll easily be able to link to the open-access journals you used to create your average of 80 million.
I won't hold my breath.
I've done that, you ignored it as you seem to want a nice round number that is equally fictitious. This kind of history is more about probabilities, not facts though. You seem unaware of this.
a) Historical numbers are wildly unreliable for numerous reasons (chiefly that they were never supposed to be accurate in the first place), so uncritically accepting historical data is naive (I provided numerous examples, although you actually gave the best example for this when you said the population of India was bigger than the population of the word).
b) 80 million requires the worst level of WW2 slaughter for 4 centuries with minimal population replacement, yet the population and prosperity were growing. Probabilistically, this is extremely unlikely which you would no doubt admit were you not emotionally invested in a random number.
Are you unaware that this is actually evidence?
You could make a case for why 80 million is plausible, but you seem unable to do this or answer extremely simple questions. You could provide your data, so I can point out why it is wrong, but obviously you don't have any.
Anyway, you'll not say anything of value on the above, but seeing as you read a lot of Arxiv, do you agree with these 2 points?
1. Accounts of war casualties are often anecdotal, spreading
via citations, and based on vague estimates, without anyone’s
ability to verify the assessments using period sources. For
instance, the independence war of Algeria has various esti-
mates, some from the French Army, others from the rebels,
and nothing scientifically obtained [19].
So the start point is not "Why shouldn't we believe them?", but "Why should we believe them?"
2. Conflicts, such as the Mongolian Invasions, which we refer
to as “named" conflicts, need to be treated with care from a sta-
tistical point of view. Named conflicts are in fact artificial tags
created by historians to aggregate events that share important
historical, geographical and political characteristics, but that
may have never really existed as a single event. Under the
portmanteau Mongolian Invasions (or Conquests), historians
collect all conflicts related to the expansion of the Mongol
empire during the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. Another
example is the so-called Hundred-Years’ War in the period
1337-1453. Aggregating all these events necessarily brings to
the creation of very large fictitious conflicts accounting for
hundreds of thousands or million casualties. The fact that, for
historical and historiographical reasons, these events tends to
be more present in antiquity and the Middle Ages could bring
to a naive overestimation of the severity of wars in the past.
Notice that named conflicts like the Mongolian Invasions are
different from those like WW1 or WW2, which naturally also
involved several tens of battles in very different locations, but
which took place in a much shorter time period, with no major
time separation among conflicts.
arxiv.org/pdf/1505.04722.pdf
Considering i compiled (most) of that list in 2010 and used it often on Topix, that is a possibility
