Largest economy in the world in history?

[Hasdrubal Barca]

Growth rate is important but can be misleading, for example, not only counting that a poor country that as nothing, if you build something there the growth rate will increase by 10% alone, but the real trick here is globalization, wealth is now global, for example France, its domestic growth rate is lower then Germany but its enterprises are far better internationalized and globalized then german one´s, so in a financial point of view France is actually growing much more then any other european country, same can be said of Brazil and its south american neighbours, while its GDP is lower, brazilian enterprises are now in a global stage and coming in force.

So watch out when you take conclusions based on rates alone...as Sun Tzu said, march divided, so the enemy will not now your real strenght.

 

[EnlightenmentHK]

Damm, you americans should really start reading more books and start watching less television.

You're the one with the nonsensical list that's largely full of sh*t, and I'm the one that needs to read more books? Are you kidding me? There was no point in history when the Soviet Union was close to the US economically. At their absolute strongest they hit only 60% or so of what we were.

 

[aronnax]

I´d say more like:

(Older to newst)
-Sumeria
-Egypt
-Hitites
-Assyrian
-Babylonian
-Mycenae
-Phoenicia
-Greece
-Macedonia
-Carthage
-Rome
-Chinese Empire
-Byzantine Empire
-Holy Roman Empire
-Franks
-Vikings
-Moors/Arabs
-Venice
-Portugal
-Aztec,Maya&Inca
-Spain
-Dutch
-England
-Otoman Empire
-Austrian-Hugarian Empire
-Prussia and Russian empire
-France
-United Kingdom&CW
-Germany
-Japan
-USA
-USSR
-USA again & European Union
-China?Brazil?Russia?

This is list is so wrong that I dont know where to begin...Its so random.

 

[citedon]

Hasdrubal Barca's list would be fine with some trimming. I agree with Sumeria then Egypt. Egypt would have stayed at number one until the Roman Empire reached its peak. At the time of Julius Caesar Egypt was still the richest country in the world. That is why he was so interested in it. I think the post Caesar Roman Empire might have been no. 1 briefly. But China would have taken over the top spot at about the same time and remained there until the British Empire reached its peek. At some point the Dutch might have briefly held the top spot prior to the British, but Spain would never be number one. They took a lot of gold out of the Americas, but spent it faster than they found it. The British would stay number one until the early to mid 20th century when the USA took over and stayed there until the present. Of course the USA today has become the biggest debtor nation in the world and our hold on number one is tenuous. One thing in our favor is that this is still a developing country, theoretically we haven't peeked yet.

 

[EnlightenmentHK]

Hasdrubal Barca's list would be fine with some trimming. I agree with Sumeria then Egypt. Egypt would have stayed at number one until the Roman Empire reached its peak. At the time of Julius Caesar Egypt was still the richest country in the world. That is why he was so interested in it. I think the post Caesar Roman Empire might have been no. 1 briefly. But China would have taken over the top spot at about the same time and remained there until the British Empire reached its peek. At some point the Dutch might have briefly held the top spot prior to the British, but Spain would never be number one. They took a lot of gold out of the Americas, but spent it faster than they found it. The British would stay number one until the early to mid 20th century when the USA took over and stayed there until the present. Of course the USA today has become the biggest debtor nation in the world and our hold on number one is tenuous. One thing in our favor is that this is still a developing country, theoretically we haven't peeked yet.

I think it needs a hell of alot more than just trimming. About half of it needs to be tossed out completely. You're missing a few as well. The Achaemenid Persians are nowhere to be found in your list or his. (Yes they topped egypt...since Egypt was kinda one of their satraps.) He does have Alexander's Macedonian empire, but you don't. Which is kind of odd since it too carved out Egypt as its own.

A previously unmentioned one that might deserve some consideration is the Mauryans. That historic GDP list always had India at or near the top. The Mauryans essentially conquered all of India and a bit more, being the only ones to do that for at least another 1500 years. They popped up united while China was doing the Warring States thing, so there'd be no competition there. Alexander's empire had already fractured, so nothing there. I think they've got about a century niche there. The reign of Asoka and perhaps a bit more.

Other than that, agreed on the China til Britain thing. I tend to exclude China as it removes a few thousand years of fun speculation.

 

[Hasdrubal Barca]

I agree i forgot the Persian Empire(the first empire in history), of course i missed some more:
- The Huns
- The Vandals (they controlled north afrika and settled in carthage for over a century)
- The Sassanids
- The Mongols (i really can´t believe i missed this one)
- The Franks was CharleMagne´s Empire
- The Kmer Empire
So feel free to reorganize/add my list, i would like more opinions...

I don´t know much of the Mauryans but history portraits them as an empire created after Alexander´s departure...but hey it was an empire of course..

 

[Tee Kay]

- The Huns - well, they received A LOT of tribute (and plunder) but it remains that, tribute. And the Hun Empire didn't last.
- The Vandals - may be wealthy by regional terms, on a global scale, no. I'd say during that time it's the Sassanids or (before 500) the Gupta Empire.
- The time of Charlemagne coincided with the Tang Empire (although weakened by An Lushan's Rebellion the Empire recovered enough to survive until AD907) and the Abbasid Caliphate (Harun Al-Rashid's reign). The Franks while regionally powerful cannot compare with those two great empires.
- The Khmers - again, regionally powerful (and more dominant in SE Asia than the Franks ever were in Europe), but probably not the world's most powerful economy even at its height (in any case there's Sung China). It's important to note that almost all its wealth comes from agriculture.

 

[Dachs]

- The Huns - well, they received A LOT of tribute (and plunder) but it remains that, tribute. And the Hun Empire didn't last.

Yeah. Outside of the Alfold being used for a pastoral economy (the Huns obviously retained their horses from the steppes and were able to maintain something like twenty to thirty thousand horsemen) most of the Hunnic Empire's economy was based on the tribute and plunder they got, primarily from the Eastern Empire. Virtually all precious metals and coinage found in the graves of purportedly Hunnic leaders in what is now the middle Danube have been of Roman origin. Only for about ten years did the Huns maintain anything like a major income from plunder (early 440s to 451-2) and even though it was a huge strain on the Eastern Roman economy it wasn't totally debilitating, and certainly not by the amount to call the Hunnic economy 'larger' than the Eastern Roman one. Sassanids might have had a shot at that juncture - the caravansary-driven trade networks were still extremely profitable, and the coffers weren't being drained by any major war. This is also before the Hephthalites come in and become an ulcer on the Persians for several decades.

 

[luiz]

Just imagine what it would have been like if it hadn't been raped by foreign powers like the Europeans and Japanese which had far more to do with China's condition than Communism. Communism was a result of China's condition not the cause of it.

The fact that China was in a position to be raped by foreign powers with a tiny percentage of its population is an indication that said raping alone is not the cause of their decadence. Internal factors should be analysed.

Furthermore Communism had far more to do with the famines that China experienced after WW2 than colonialism. This is a simple, verifiable fact.

 

[Ace of Gold]

- The Franks was CharleMagne´s Empire
.

really, he was leader of the Franks

then why in civ 4 is he the leader of The HRE, or am I getting the leaders mixed up

 

[EnlightenmentHK]

really, he was leader of the Franks

then why in civ 4 is he the leader of The HRE, or am I getting the leaders mixed up

Yes, he was the leader of the Franks. The Franks were the closet thing to a United Europe since the fall of Rome and Charlemagne became a revered leader and tried to promote the image of a spiritual successor to the Roman Empire once crowned. Even though his empire more or less disintegrated after his death, he still remained a major figure. Like Alexander or Caesar, his status soon became legendary, almost mythical. If he was the authority that tied Europe of the time to the old Roman Empire, than rulers of that part of Europe tried to establish themselves as successors to his lands, status, and authority. The HRE was also a strategically effective means (sometimes) for the tiny Duchy's and city-states that dominated Central and parts of Eastern Europe to counter the bigger, more united kingdoms surrounding it. (as well as a means of settling internal disputes and conflicts)

It was never anything close to a united empire of course. The power of the so called emperor rose and waned usually according to the political and military skill of its holder. Individual dukes almost always resisted expansions in 'imperial' power and the body almost never acted as a united entity nor could it often stop one minor Duchy hitting another. Calling it a Union or Confederation is also probably stretching it. More like a regional UN with nations that had some common enemies and interests.

Charlemagne is the leader in the Civ game since he is the basis upon which the HRE and the emperor lays their claims to that region. It would be 150 years after his death before the first actual Holy Roman Emperor was crowned and the loose confederation began to be formalized.

 

[Traitorfish]

really, he was leader of the Franks

then why in civ 4 is he the leader of The HRE, or am I getting the leaders mixed up

It's complicated. Short version is, Charlemagne was crowned Imperator Augustus, essentially Roman Emperor, a largely ceremonial title intended to affirm Papal support for the Frankish Empire, and the title was retained by later Frankish and German rulers, picking up the prefix "Holy" along the way.
Charlemagne's portrayal in BTS as leader of the "HRE" is technically inaccurate, but I suppose it was felt that giving another leader to the French or Germans was unnecessary, plus a new civ allowed a new unique unit and building.

 

[Marla_Singer]

Charlemagne should be leader of the Franks in Civ. Not a leader of the HRE. This is totally silly... it's like portraying Henri IVth of France as leader of Quebec because it's under his rule that France conquered what will later become Canada.

 

[Dachs]

The fact that China was in a position to be raped by foreign powers with a tiny percentage of its population is an indication that said raping alone is not the cause of their decadence. Internal factors should be analysed.

'Tiny' is misleading. Due to the Agricultural Revolution, Europe and China had comparable populations overall around 1900. After that the Chinese started to take off. True, Europe wasn't united generally in its efforts to subdue China, but they weren't a 'tiny percentage' either.

Charlemagne should be leader of the Franks in Civ. Not a leader of the HRE. This is totally silly... it's like portraying Henri IVth of France as leader of Quebec because it's under his rule that France conquered what will later become Canada.

But at least the entity that Charlemagne ruled had, at least briefly, the title of Holy Roman Empire.

 

[Marla_Singer]

It's complicated.

No it's not complicated.

• Charlemagne is a Frankish leader at the head of a 400 year-old kingdom located in what is today Belgium and France.
• During his reign, Charlemagne expands that kingdom eastbound to today's Germany, Austria and Northern Italy.
• Charlemagne is crowned by the pope as "Emperor of the Western".
• At his death the Empire split in three parts.
• 200 years later, the Easternmost of those three parts, which had been named "Francia Orientalis" at the time of the divide , evolve into the Holy Roman Empire, which is essentially today's Germany.

Considering Charlemagne as anything else than Frankish is a historical mistake similar to considering Caesar as anything else than Roman. And the Holy Roman Empire has never been Frankish.

Charlemagne's portrayal in BTS as leader of the "HRE" is technically inaccurate, but I suppose it was felt that giving another leader to the French or Germans was unnecessary, plus a new civ allowed a new unique unit and building.

I can't understand this argument. The Holy Roman Empire is the old name of Germany. The Franks are not the old name of the French, they are different people who finally mixed with the local Gallo-romans (themselves being already a mix between Celts and latins).

As such, creating the Frankish civilization rather than the HRE civilization was much more rational than creating a 2nd Germany named this time HRE. It would be like having one civilization named England and a second one named United Kingdom. It doesn't make any sense.

 

[Marla_Singer]

But at least the entity that Charlemagne ruled had, at least briefly, the title of Holy Roman Empire.

It has never been named this way. In 800 AD, the pope crowned Charlemagne as "Emperor of the Western", not "Holy Roman Emperor".

The name "Holy Roman Empire" only poped up 200 years later in reference to Charlemagne's coronation inheritance. But that part, located in today's Germany, is only a third of Charlemagne's Empire, and not even the part Charlemagne was originally from considering the Frankish kingdom was established during 400 years before him in the area of today's France and Belgium.

 

[luiz]

'Tiny' is misleading. Due to the Agricultural Revolution, Europe and China had comparable populations overall around 1900. After that the Chinese started to take off. True, Europe wasn't united generally in its efforts to subdue China, but they weren't a 'tiny percentage' either.

But as you said, it wasn't the nation "Europe" that took on China. It was the UK, and Portugal, etc. And their populations, even combined, were indeed a tiny portion of China's. I don't see why the population of Greece or the Ukraine should add up with the colonial power.

 

[Dachs]

It has never been named this way. In 800 AD, the pope crowned Charlemagne as "Emperor of the Western", not "Holy Roman Emperor".

The name "Holy Roman Empire" only poped up 200 years later in reference to Charlemagne's coronation inheritance. But that part, located in today's Germany, is only a third of Charlemagne's Empire, and not even the part Charlemagne was originally from considering the Frankish kingdom was established during 400 years before him in the area of today's France and Belgium.

So it's about as silly as Friedrich II ruling "Germany" or Sitting Bull ruling the "Native Americans".

Austrasia covered part of the Rhineland, too, you know, and Charlemagne's capital was in modern Germany. I think that Sid and co. figured that most of the rulers of the HRE when it was called "Holy Roman Empire [of the German Nation]" would qualify as 'German' more than 'Holy Roman Imperial', while 'Frankish', for them, was too close to the France of Napoleon and Louis to qualify as a separate nation.

But as you said, it wasn't the nation "Europe" that took on China. It was the UK, and Portugal, etc. And their populations, even combined, were indeed a tiny portion of China's. I don't see why the population of Greece or the Ukraine should add up with the colonial power.

Here. Germany, Russia, the UK, the USA, and France add up pretty bloody quick.

 

[luiz]

Here. Germany, Russia, the UK, the USA, and France add up pretty bloody quick.

You might as well add the extraterrestrian population, when it comes to my post you objected to.

Edit: And not only that, if you actually sum the population of all those countries in 1900 as per your link, you will get 258 million people. China had 400 millions. Explore the links in the site.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I agree i forgot the Persian Empire(the first empire in history), of course i missed some more:

The Egyptians, Babylonians, Assyrians, Zhou, and Shang would be very dissapointed in that conclusion.

Also, are you just trying to name every single empire in history or something?