Looking for historical GDP data

[Cheetah]

I am looking for data concerning the GDP, population and other demographics from historical times.

Are there any data about the GDP and such from the Roman Empire, or 15. century Russia, or China during the Han-dynasty, etc?

I have no idea where to start looking for this, so I hope someone here can give me some help.

 

[amadeus]

The best information I can give for Rome would probably be a cumulative estimate of Western Europe at 1AD. I've got a little bit of data on China.

That would have to be $16,561,350,000.

China in 1500 would have to be $92,082,000,000.

$143,040,000,000 in 1600.
$123,372,000,000 in 1700.
$340,614,000,000 in 1820.

Russia in 1600 would be $17,024,740,000.

This data is from The World Economy: Historical Statistics published by the OECD.

 

[Cheetah]

Thanks sharpe.

You looked that up in a book you have or the internet? And what year are those dollars from?

Edit: Yes, looks like I would have to buy it. Gonna try some more google-searchs for more sources tomorrow then.

 

[amadeus]

I've got an Excel file of it, I'll be happy to upload it for you.

Those were 1990 dollars, but I converted them to 2005 dollars using the Bureau of Labor Statistics' inflation calculator.

 

[amadeus]

Here's the file.

 

[Knight-Dragon]

Moderator Action: Moved to History, for longer thread-life.

 

[Rambuchan]

A fascinating document there rmsharpe! Here's the link to the background write up. Is this the only one of its kind that has been done?

 

[Uiler]

If I remember correctly, for most of world history the world's GDP was dominated by China and India. I seem to remember that the two together made up like 70-80% of the world's GDP. In fact until about the mid-1800s China and India still were the largest economies in the world and had the most manufacturing. They were much poorer per capita than Western nations which had been technologically advancing but sheer weight of numbers overcame that. However in the mid-1800s the effect of the Industrial Revolution really took off and China and India's % of world GDP basically plummetted to practically nothing.

I don't have the figures from before 1750 or for the GDP as it was in Thunder In the East. However, from "The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers":

Share of World Manufacturing:

1750: Europe 23.2%; US 0.1%; Japan 3.8%; China 32.8%; India 24.5% (and this was after centuries of decline for China and India so imagine what it was like at their height...).
1830: Europe 34.2%; US 2.4%; Japan 2.8%; China 29.8%; India 17.6%
1860: Europe 53.2%; US 7.2%; Japan 2.6%; China 19.7%; India 8.6%
1900: Europe 62%; US 23.6%; Japan 2.4%; China 12.5%; India 1.7%

Of the vast rise in Europe, the vast majority of it is not suprisingly from Great Britain.

 

[Cheetah]

That's a great file sharpe!

Thanks a lot.

 

[amadeus]

A fascinating document there rmsharpe! Here's the link to the background write up. Is this the only one of its kind that has been done?

There's another one that I'm aware of, and that's the Total Economy Database. It has more specific things like levels of civilian employment and whatnot, but it only dates back to 1950.

The Groningen Growth and Development Centre has a lot more of this kind of data, but more specific to particular countries in the OECD. There's Excel files of the growth of OECD industries, etc.

If you're into economic statistics, those two are really priceless sources.

 

[amadeus]

That's a great file sharpe!

Thanks a lot.

No problem. You should also download the TED, because it has statistics on employment, average hours worked, labor productivity, etc.

 

[Khaghan]

Angus Maddison is not a historian of the pre industrialized world and has a greater focus on the 19th-20th century as well as Europe. He does not take account of archaeological sources, industrial factories or field data of various countries. He merely examines the contents of calorie within the food themselves, which is speculative to begin with. In fact, he himself admits his estimation are nothing but the crudest rough estimations. There are plenty of other better estimaters than Maddison. However, no one seem to go back into 1 A.D. its impossible to make an estimation so far back.

 

[cyrusIII85]

If I remember correctly, for most of world history the world's GDP was dominated by China and India. I seem to remember that the two together made up like 70-80% of the world's GDP. In fact until about the mid-1800s China and India still were the largest economies in the world and had the most manufacturing. They were much poorer per capita than Western nations which had been technologically advancing but sheer weight of numbers overcame that. However in the mid-1800s the effect of the Industrial Revolution really took off and China and India's % of world GDP basically plummetted to practically nothing.

I don't have the figures from before 1750 or for the GDP as it was in Thunder In the East. However, from "The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers":

Share of World Manufacturing:

1750: Europe 23.2%; US 0.1%; Japan 3.8%; China 32.8%; India 24.5% (and this was after centuries of decline for China and India so imagine what it was like at their height...).
1830: Europe 34.2%; US 2.4%; Japan 2.8%; China 29.8%; India 17.6%
1860: Europe 53.2%; US 7.2%; Japan 2.6%; China 19.7%; India 8.6%
1900: Europe 62%; US 23.6%; Japan 2.4%; China 12.5%; India 1.7%

Of the vast rise in Europe, the vast majority of it is not suprisingly from Great Britain.

Lol, forgive me if I'm missing something, but how can you say that "world manufacturing" was mostly done in China and India when the industrial revolution didn't hit them yet. "Manufacturing" usually involves industrial processes.

Also, forgive me I'm Iranian, but perhaps the most memorable goods have always come from Persia. Persian carpets, Persian slippers, pottery, metalworking, etc. all had a huge history in Iran. Persia, in fact, has always been known to have huge amounts of gold and silver (extraordinarily detailed by the conquests of Alexander and the Arabs by what they plundered). And yet somehow the article seems to miss all of the goods that Persians (and by Persia, I mean Iran with alot of C. Asian territory) and leaves only 15% for other areas. I can tell you this right now that Indians were, and always have been, very poor generally and never reached the amount wealth that could have ever been acquired in other states. And yet, they produced at least twice as much as Iran. I don't buy that for one minute. Name a product that comes from India that's memorable. JUST ONE.

Oh, and if you are referencing purely manufacturing for both external and internal use (aka everyday life), your stats don't mean squat. It's obvious that such countries would produce more because they had higher populations. That doesn't mean they were more efficient, better, or richer at all. That means they were able to reproduce more, and they need goods to meet that population. Also, for the last time, those guys weren't on the top of the heap always. Even Iranians conquered Indian Territory during the Achemeadian, Sassanid, Sultan Mahmoud, and Nadir Shah time periods. Not to mention domination by the British for 300 years. Somehow, I would think that their "riches" would have sharply dropped during these times unless it was only dependent on the population size.

When Indians were pictured in Persepolis, they didn't have shoes. Think about that.

 

[North King]

I can tell you this right now that Indians were, and always have been, very poor generally and never reached the amount wealth that could have ever been acquired in other states. And yet, they produced at least twice as much as Iran. I don't buy that for one minute. Name a product that comes from India that's memorable. JUST ONE.

Too long to list.

I can tell you that you are dead wrong. In the ancient era, India was one of the richest areas in the world, far richer than any other one region, except perhaps China. It was highly populated, had many natural resources, many manufactured products, etc. They had the biggest armies in the world, bigger than Persia, for that matter.

India was not the tiny, poor region that you seem to think it was. India was a powerhouse.

Also, for the last time, those guys weren't on the top of the heap always. Even Iranians conquered Indian Territory during the Achemeadian, Sassanid, Sultan Mahmoud, and Nadir Shah time periods. Not to mention domination by the British for 300 years. Somehow, I would think that their "riches" would have sharply dropped during these times unless it was only dependent on the population size.

Wrong, in essence.

The territory conquered by the Achaemedian Persians in India barely extended to the Indus River. In case you didn't know, this was a backwater in India.

They didn't come close to the central powers of India, like Magadha, which had an army of hundreds of thousands, a strong, agressive dynasty, which could have devastated the Persian army if they had come a calling. Alexander would have had a great deal of trouble conquering them, if he could have conquered them at all, which I doubt. Magadha alone at that time had an army of somewhere near half a million, with thousands of war elephants. They had tremendous riches.

The Sassinids... I'm not sure where you're getting your information from, except perhaps pure nationalism. They didn't conquer really any territory in the Indian subcontinent at all. They coincided with one of the greatest Indian Empires, as a matter of fact, the Gupta, and its verifiable fact that the Guptas were one of the strongest empires in the world at this time.

Various other Muslim rulers who would be better described as Bactrians than Persians did sack a few Indian cities, but if they even carved out a lasting empire, they were assimilated into Indian culture. Oh, and one might note that they wouldn't have gone a'sackin' if there wasn't anything to sack.

Only during the Safavids did they really come close, but even then, Persia didn't make much headway.

When Indians were pictured in Persepolis, they didn't have shoes. Think about that.

Think about this: the Indians pictured were probably from the Indus Valley, the only place which might pay tribute to the Persian kings. This was a backwater, under corrupt an ineffectual Persian rule.

Think about this: India has had throughout history some of the greatest works of art in all of the world, usually involving a large amount of gold and diamonds.

Think about this: Indian armies conquered land from the Malay Peninsula to Persia.

India was always an aggressive, rich power in ancient times. And through the medieval era. The downturn came in colonial times, when the British exploited it for their colonial empire. Now India is on the rebound, and anyone who underestimates it has their head in the sand.

 

[cyrusIII85]

Here's the file.

This document has SO many inaccuracies concerning Iran. First, lets compare Iran and Iraq:

GDP per capita at 1820: Iran - 588
Iraq - 588

Horribly untrue. Iran had a history of states where Iran was the controller. Iraq had a history of being constantly conquered by Ottomans and Persians and had neither stable state nor king that ruled for the Iraqi people. Even though, despite all of this turmoil, Iraq had as much proportional wealth of Iran??? Ridiculous...

1913 is the same deal. Iran 1000, Iraq 1000. Again I ask, how did the complete decline, and eventual breakup, of the Ottoman Empire, didn't take out any wealth from a subservient state, whereas Iran was under stable control with the first oil exports? Again, completely a lie.

Let's look at populations in Iran:

1000 AD - 4500
1500 AD - 4000

Now, this seems very interesting to me. Btw, I'm assuming this is in thousands (aka 4.5 mil and 4 mil). I have read score upon score of books concerning the Mongolian invasion. While the estimates vary, approx 1 mil Iranians were killed by the Mongolians directly through their onslaught and a couple of million more were killed by the total warfare tactics that they used (aka Mongolians destroyed farmland, irrigation units, etc.) This would have meant a huge drop in population, and one historian said it took until the 1900's for the population to recover to pre-Mongolian levels. Now I see that in the year 1600 AD that Iranian population had grown beyond it, and that only .5 mil people were lost approx.

I find this to basically completely downplay the genocidal efforts of the Mongolians, and the suffering that Iranians endured. It pars the recent holocaust denials even.

And btw, IMO, the populations of Iran seem too small overall in the statistics.

Let's look at Per Capita GDP:

1 AD - Not reported
1000 AD - Not reported
1500 AD - Not reported
1600 AD - Not Reported
1700 AD - Not Reported
1820 AD - 588

I'm surprised that they are completely incompetent. Through the most important eras of Iran, they fail to show ONE statistic on GDP for 1800 years! How is that, concerning the fact that Iran was a world power in much of that era, and Persia was a central, civilized country. They clearly also miss the fact, again, that Iran created a surprising amount of things (especially metals) that led to the prosperity of Iranians in much of these times. Even during the Safavid era, one of the best eras economically for Iran were trading was organized extensively, they still don't have a GDP stat. It's until we reach to the Qajar era, not the best in Iranian history and more incompetent, that we actually see a statistic. WHY IS THAT?

I find this document to be completely invalid regarding Iran, and I bet I can find more inconsistencies if I actually had time. I need to go to wherever they are headquartered and slap each one of these "scholars".

 

[cyrusIII85]

Too long to list.

I can tell you that you are dead wrong. In the ancient era, India was one of the richest areas in the world, far richer than any other one region, except perhaps China. It was highly populated, had many natural resources, many manufactured products, etc. They had the biggest armies in the world, bigger than Persia, for that matter.

India was not the tiny, poor region that you seem to think it was. India was a powerhouse.

Oh and I'm sure that the fact that Iran conquered part of India, that India was conquered in territory by many people, and that India never tried to conquer Persia, gives testament to it's strength. Instead, they focused on conquering C. Asia throughout history, a much poorer region, shows their superiority. And I asked you to mention one.

Wrong, in essence.

The territory conquered by the Achaemedian Persians in India barely extended to the Indus River. In case you didn't know, this was a backwater in India.

http://www.geographicus.com/Merchant2/graphics/00000001/AncientPersia-wilkinson-1807.jpg

It extended beyond the Indus River. Furthermore, you seen to forget it's where Indian civilization began historically. I don't think it's wise to demean them. Furthermore, as you stated, if they had a good army, then they wouldn't even allow the loss of that territory and the conquering of the riches, which was extensive in that area. If it wasn't worth conquering then it wouldn't have been by Darius, one of the greatest Persian kings. Extremely gifted organizer, and he had many successes in his India operations.

They didn't come close to the central powers of India, like Magadha, which had an army of hundreds of thousands, a strong, agressive dynasty, which could have devastated the Persian army if they had come a calling. Alexander would have had a great deal of trouble conquering them, if he could have conquered them at all, which I doubt. Magadha alone at that time had an army of somewhere near half a million, with thousands of war elephants. They had tremendous riches.

Oh I'm so sure that Persia didn't have anything like that. Persia didn't have the first world empire. Persia didn't have the cleverest administrative capabilities that bound together huge groups of people into a single nation. Persia, despite its huge landmass, didn't have as good armies, despite the fact they conquered more people and land than India ever did. And elephants, quite frankly, I don't find to be too great. Persians even had these, and they weren't effective.

The Sassinids... I'm not sure where you're getting your information from, except perhaps pure nationalism. They didn't conquer really any territory in the Indian subcontinent at all. They coincided with one of the greatest Indian Empires, as a matter of fact, the Gupta, and its verifiable fact that the Guptas were one of the strongest empires in the world at this time.

http://www.persiangulfonline.org/persian_gulf_sasanian_empire.gif

So I'm sure that Sassanids weren't that good, despite they took land from them eh?

Various other Muslim rulers who would be better described as Bactrians than Persians did sack a few Indian cities, but if they even carved out a lasting empire, they were assimilated into Indian culture. Oh, and one might note that they wouldn't have gone a'sackin' if there wasn't anything to sack.

Only during the Safavids did they really come close, but even then, Persia didn't make much headway.

In never made a statement toward the Saffavids. I was talking about Nadir Shah. And yes, you are right that they wouldn't have sacked if there was nothing to sack, but I'm not denying wealth, only the quantities.

And no, Sultan Mahmoud and Nadir Shah were certainly not assimilated.

Think about this: the Indians pictured were probably from the Indus Valley, the only place which might pay tribute to the Persian kings. This was a backwater, under corrupt an ineffectual Persian rule.

CORRUPT! Ha...Persia was able to bind together the Middle East for the first time based on religious and ethnic tolerance. We didn't need religion to bind the region. And yet, you call the presence of freedom and human rights, corrupt. Bravo.

Think about this: India has had throughout history some of the greatest works of art in all of the world, usually involving a large amount of gold and diamonds.

Right, and Persia had the same. I'm well aware of the conquering of Nadir Shah and the peacock throne and the Sea of Light, but that was completely under the domain of kings, not the general population.

Think about this: Indian armies conquered land from the Malay Peninsula to Persia.

They never conquered Persia, and that shows something.

India was always an aggressive, rich power in ancient times. And through the medieval era. The downturn came in colonial times, when the British exploited it for their colonial empire. Now India is on the rebound, and anyone who underestimates it has their head in the sand.

Aggressive where it could be.

Concerning present times, true, but I'm not referring to the present times. Btw, there are alot of complications concerning India, so I wouldn't be soo sure about saying that.

 

[cyrusIII85]

On a more interesting note, can you explain why extacly Britain was able to take over India completely and not Iran? Personally, I somwhat confused as to why neither Russia nor Britain were able to conquer Iran, merely create spheres of influence, but were able to take India far more extensively.

 

[simonnomis]

Oh my... Yes, of course, Iran is/was the greatest, richest, most productive country the world has ever known, and these historians are really bad for having somehow overlooked this fact.

What exactly is your point? Why don't you present us with your historical research and GDP estimates of Persia/Iran so we can see just how wrong this ignorant historian is? You read like you have a huge chip on your shoulder about Iran, when this thread is supposed to be about historical GDP figures.

 

[Israelite9191]

OK Mr. Cyrus, you are right that Persia was, at times, a world power. However, at other times it was nothing compared to the might of Indian civilizations. While it is true that during pre-Alexandrian times Persia could be considered the greatest power west of China, or even including China, this domination did not extend beyond the fall of Persia to Alexander the Great. Also, I must ask, if Persia was so great then why did it fall so many times to foreign invaders? The Macedonians under Alexander, a tiny backwater of Greece, managed to conquer Persia in record time. Your great Sassanid Empire fell to desert nomads who had only recently been united into one civilized nation. Persia also fell to the Seljuk Turks and the Mongols. At least the Mongols had the arguably greatest military leader and tactician at the helm, the Seljuks were simply a steppe tribe from out of no where. Furthermore, if the Sassanid empire was so great, then why were they incapable of launching an invasion of the Byzantine Empire? The Byzantines may have been the strongest Westerners, but as time progressed they became nothing compared to the Eastern Empires. The Arabs, Seljuks, Magyars, and many other nations nearly conquered them, all of these supposedly below Persian might according to you. In the end, a tribe of stepped nomad Turks, the Ottomans, would bring down Byzantium, not your precious Persia.

Now, for my last point, you are ignoring the point of this thread. I probably shouldn't even respond to you. This thread is about the historical GDPs of the world. You are making it into a debate about Persia vs. India. In your criticisms you are also ignoring what the term Groos Domestic Product means. GDP means the overall capacity of a nation to produce goods and services, it does not mean the relative wealth of nations. The relative wealth of nations is calculated through Gross Domestic Product per capita. While Persia at certain points in time may have had a larger GDP per capita than India and other nations, that does not mean that the GDP was higher. Luxembourg has the highest GDP per capita in the world. This does not mean it is most economically powerful country in the world however. Their GDP in fact is U.S.29.37 billion. Compare that to, say, Iran, which has a GDP of U.S.$551.6 billion. Or, compare it to India which has a GDP of U.S.$3.678 trillion. While I agree with you that the estimates for Persia may be under inflated, I don't believe you understand the concepts of GDP and GDP per capita. I hope this will help you in understanding what the difference is.

 

[cyrusIII85]

Also, I must ask, if Persia was so great then why did it fall so many times to foreign invaders?

Many, many reasons. Lets just say that every single great nation was conquered by people of less sophistication. Greece was conquered by Macedonians and Romans, both at the time not of great sophistication at all. China by Mogolians, another steepe tribe, and Japanese, obviously not as great as their mainland partners. Rome was defeated by Germanic tribes. All of these countries were great, but all of them fell because the forces that attacked them only cared about conquering and looting. Completely warfaric in other words.

The Macedonians under Alexander, a tiny backwater of Greece, managed to conquer Persia in record time.

Greeks and Macedonians focused heavily on military combat and technology. This was due to the fractious climate of Greeks which allowed them to master combat techniques, and have a society which was typically more warfaric, than Iranians who didn't have that great of combat for the oppisite reasons. Alexander was also a great general, and so was Cyrus when he was from a backwater Persia. Everything is backwater at some point, and it's about thinking novel ideas and having good leadership. Of course, this analysis forgets that Alexander's Empire fell apart in record time while Cyrus's lasted much longer.

Your great Sassanid Empire fell to desert nomads who had only recently been united into one civilized nation.

True, but that was because the wars between the Byzantines and Persians evolved in such a way that heavy armored troops became norm. When Persians fought against Arabs in the desert, such armor proved fatal. And they had hit and run tactics which were actually developed by Parthians, the predessors of Sassanids. So I attribute it to "luck", the fact that Arab fighting style was better at that time and place. Obviously, Iranians were able to gain independence from Arabs and turn into an independent state, and conquered the Arabs by way of the Buyid brothers. THAT conquering is far less well known, although they did conquer the Islamic empire.

Persia also fell to the Seljuk Turks and the Mongols. At least the Mongols had the arguably greatest military leader and tactician at the helm, the Seljuks were simply a steppe tribe from out of no where.

So were Mongols. But that's beside the point. Seljuks actually conributed to Iran's stability and increased cultural activity. They didn't come to Iran as overbearing conquerors, but of Iranian mindset, and were welcomed as such.

Furthermore, if the Sassanid empire was so great, then why were they incapable of launching an invasion of the Byzantine Empire? The Byzantines may have been the strongest Westerners, but as time progressed they became nothing compared to the Eastern Empires. The Arabs, Seljuks, Magyars, and many other nations nearly conquered them, all of these supposedly below Persian might according to you. In the end, a tribe of stepped nomad Turks, the Ottomans, would bring down Byzantium, not your precious Persia.

Persia launched many many invasions of the Byzantine Empire. At one point, Persians conquered Egypt, Israel, and all other Byzantine land other than W. Turkey and captured Emperor Valierian. Overall, however, Persia usually abided by peace treaties, whereas nomads don't. As a result, Byzantines were in a more stable poisition with Persia than later on, and Persia wasn't purely focused on conquering. In other words, different people have different agendas.

Now, for my last point, you are ignoring the point of this thread. I probably shouldn't even respond to you. This thread is about the historical GDPs of the world. You are making it into a debate about Persia vs. India.

I'm using it as a comparison point, and arguing that GDP's given are inaccurate concerning Persia and Iran. I also argued towards India in terms of production and wealth with respect to that, not of GDP. Look at my previous posts and you will find nothing of comparing India and Iran's GDP.

In your criticisms you are also ignoring what the term Groos Domestic Product means. GDP means the overall capacity of a nation to produce goods and services, it does not mean the relative wealth of nations. The relative wealth of nations is calculated through Gross Domestic Product per capita. While Persia at certain points in time may have had a larger GDP per capita than India and other nations, that does not mean that the GDP was higher. Luxembourg has the highest GDP per capita in the world. This does not mean it is most economically powerful country in the world however. Their GDP in fact is U.S.29.37 billion. Compare that to, say, Iran, which has a GDP of U.S.$551.6 billion. Or, compare it to India which has a GDP of U.S.$3.678 trillion. While I agree with you that the estimates for Persia may be under inflated, I don't believe you understand the concepts of GDP and GDP per capita. I hope this will help you in understanding what the difference is.

I know what it means. I fail to see how I demonstrated misuse of the concepts in my posts.