Looking for historical GDP data

[cyrusIII85]

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.

Western historians have often overlooked Persia because of the biased and prejudiced views of Greek and Roman "historians". Iranians nowadays have to go against their views to bring the truth, the REAL truth, about Iran and it's state.

And lol, I don't pretend to even try to calculate those amounts. All I'm saying is that there are rather peculiar amounts listed and from an empirical standpoint, they most probably are wrong. I also call into question the entire accuracy of these methods, but that's opening the can way too far.

 

[superisis]

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

I think you are being slightly too harsh on Persia/Iran. Perhaps to make a point, but I still think your argument is slightly biased.

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

And many other Empires... Remember there is a reason why Alex is called "the great". Check the "greatest of the great" thread. There's no shame in having your empire conquered by Alex.

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

So did the two most important regions of the Byzantine Empire (Syria and Egypt). Again, sais nothing of the lack of greatness of the Sassanian 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,

Who incidently managed to conquer almost every great empire in the world (not counting the americas). And the Places that weren't conquered by the mongol probably would've been had the mongols been able to get there (Japan, Western Europe, etc)

the Seljuks were simply a steppe tribe from out of no where.

Who incidently managed to kick the western army ass. (see Manzikert 1071). So again, no shame in losing to the turks.

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.

Persia was very capable of launching invasions against the Byzantines. It did so on plenty of occasion. Kicking Byzantine ass permanetly and stealing all their turf i another story. When the Byzantines lost territory and became weaker than the eastern empires, Persia didn't conquer it simply because it wasn't next to it. The ottomans where (those previous mentioned Seljuks). Asking why Persia didn't conquer the Byzantines in the 1400's is like asking why Persia didn't conquer Irland in the 400's.

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.

This statement I agree with. Persia was not mightier than the Arabs, Seljuks, Ottomans, etc at every point in history.Shame perhaps, but t'is the truth.

 

[Israelite9191]

I may have sounded over critical of the Persian empire, but if you notice I did say that the pre-Hellenistic Persians were the greatest world power west of China or even including China. I also stated that the figures did look a little deflated. All I was trying to do was point out the failures that Persia did have throughout history so that our Persian nationalist friend would be confronted with them. Persia, of course, had many accomplishments that I did not mention, in fact probably more accomplishments than failures, but that does not justify the kind of nationalism Mr. Cyrus is expressing. I admit that I may not be the best person to preach about nationalism given my intense feelings about the under rated accomplishments of the Jewish, Irish, and Hungarian peoples. However, I would never make such jingoist statements as Cyrus here has.

 

[North King]

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.

So many misconceptions. Iran, in one form or another, did conquer portions of India. So did other nations. But only once did any one nation conquer the entirety, no, in fact, only once did any one nation conquer more than half, that wasn't an Indian power, that being Britain. India, by the way, conquered many nations; they simply weren't interested in conquering Iran.

BTW, what's your definition of Iran? Because the Mauryan, Gupta, and Mughal Empires all extended significantly into these areas.

For your "one" product: the tapestries you like to attribute to Persia were actually produced originally in mass by India. Sorry.

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.

What the heck?

So if a nation is the cradle of civilization, it is automatically the heartlands? Bull. Mespotamia is frankly a rather poor region today. The Yellow River Valley in China is not its most productive area. Egypt is no longer one of the greatest civilizations. Do you have no concept of change?

By the time of the Achaemedians, the Indus Valley was a backwater. He never advanced into the heartland of Magadha, as he would have been outnumbered, undersupplied, and thouroughly crushed. At least he recognized that.

Oh I'm so sure that Persia didn't have anything like that. Persia didn't have the first world empire.

World Empire?

Several regions were conquered by Persia. All of them past their prime. And when the Persians actually ran into significant resistance, like the Greeks or Magadhans. And the Assyrians and Babylonians managed similar feats.

Persia didn't have the cleverest administrative capabilities that bound together huge groups of people into a single nation.

LOL. You are madly in love with Persia, eh? It wasn't a nation by any stretch of the word. It was an empire, binding a bunch of people under one banner, but they certainly didn't regard themselves as Persian.

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.

Actually, you're wrong. India has, historically, conquered many more people than Persia ever did. They also controlled comparable amounts of land. And furthermore, Alexander ceded his Indus province for 500 elephants; they certainly were effective.

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?

Um... Wow. Bad Map. It's as though someone just continued the border, without remembering to close it off. The Guptas controlled most of the territory that (really crappy) map attributes to the Sassinids.

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.

And no, with those paragraphs, I wasn't even talking about that. I was actually talking about dynasts who ruled over Indian territory, and since I haven't heard of either of those controlling large amounts of Indian territory...

The only dynasty which was muslim which managed to conquer a significant part of India, that of Delhi, was corrupt, ineffectual, and bloated.

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.

Maybe I was talking about Darius III, not Cyrus?

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.

And yet, most Indian merchants were rather wealthy too. Their nobles, their warriors. Only the lower castes were poor, and face it, everybody back then had poor lower classes. Even your beloved Persia.

They never conquered Persia, and that shows something.

Again, your definition of Persia? Or is it just what the Indians didn't conquer? Do I need to break out the maps of the extensive Mughal and Mauryan Empires?

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.

Neither am I. I'm referring to ancient times, when India had comparable warriors to the rest of the world. When they conquered large portions of the world.



Look, I'm sorry for intruding on your fantasyland where Persia is the greatest nation on earth. Personally, I always respected Persia as a nation, I like their history. Cyrus the Great is one of my personal heroes. But your fanaticism is blind and stupid. You deny that they were ever truly conquered, well... Mongols. Furthermore, the Parthians. And the Romans. And the Arabs. And after the Mongols, it wasn't worth conquering, since, as you yourself poitned out, it was devastated.

I love Persia, but you bloat it beyond all recognition. You think it is heaven on earth. And I, frankly, don't. I recognize it as a powerful empire when it had good rulers, not so good when it didn't. Frankly, I'm done debating with you. Take your fanaticism to an "I love Persia" forum. Thanks.

 

[North King]

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.

Britain conquered a quarter of the world. Or weren't you looking?

Britain was able to conquer India mainly due to the fact that they had many local allies, and because India was divided. And because India was worth conquering. Iran, at the time of colonialism, was a backwater, poor, with few natural resources. India was rich, with gold, diamonds, and a vast workforce.

 

[cyrusIII85]

So many misconceptions. Iran, in one form or another, did conquer portions of India. So did other nations. But only once did any one nation conquer the entirety, no, in fact, only once did any one nation conquer more than half, that wasn't an Indian power, that being Britain. India, by the way, conquered many nations; they simply weren't interested in conquering Iran.

They conquered certain C. Asian countries (maybe not entirety) that certainly were less impressive than Persia. Again, they could have tried, but they didn't and to this day, given the military strength of India, I don't know why this is.

BTW, what's your definition of Iran? Because the Mauryan, Gupta, and Mughal Empires all extended significantly into these areas.

Never. The most was conquered based on what I have seen is the entirety of Pakistan under the Mauryan Empire. They never reached modern day Iran. Also, mind you, Pakistan and India (aka Hindustan) both have names that relate them to Persian provinces. I know of no such influence by Indians on Persians. Indians also took miniature art painting styles by the Persian masters and Hindi still has major influences from Iran.

For your "one" product: the tapestries you like to attribute to Persia were actually produced originally in mass by India. Sorry.

Sorry that you are lying.

What the heck?

So if a nation is the cradle of civilization, it is automatically the heartlands? Bull. Mesopotamia is frankly a rather poor region today. The Yellow River Valley in China is not its most productive area. Egypt is no longer one of the greatest civilizations. Do you have no concept of change?

By the time of the Achaemedians, the Indus Valley was a backwater. He never advanced into the heartland of Magadha, as he would have been outnumbered, undersupplied, and thoroughly crushed. At least he recognized that.

Lol, and I'm typing that you should respect the origin of the civilization you keep on talking about. Btw, if Indians truly had respect for its people and culture it would have preserved that area instead of allowing to be conquered. And if the Maghdian army was so effective it wouldn't have allowed even that breach. Unless, of course, it would have been outnumbered, undersupplied, and thoroughly crushed.

World Empire?

Several regions were conquered by Persia. All of them past their prime. And when the Persians actually ran into significant resistance, like the Greeks or Magadhans. And the Assyrians and Babylonians managed similar feats.

Not at all. Lydia was still in good strength. Babylon had a bad king, but didn't too long before had the Assyrians conquering massive lands and dominating the area. Egypt certainly wasn't as well, and conquering the Ionian Greeks, part of Greece (aka the GREAT country according to Western historians), certainly wasn't past it's peak.

And no, Persians constructed the first world empire. They conquered lands from every single existing empire, including India and China. That made them a world empire, comprising every single people of significance. If you don't believe me:

www.ettelaat.net/extra_05_09/f_persian.wmv

Perhaps you will believe a special about historical Persia.

LOL. You are madly in love with Persia, eh? It wasn't a nation by any stretch of the word. It was an empire, binding a bunch of people under one banner, but they certainly didn't regard themselves as Persian.

Lol, sorry for saying "nation". It strikes me odd that you can't say "nation" when people lived willingly and generally peacefully within the state and held citizenship to the state. That strikes me as a nation. But whatever.

Actually, you're wrong. India has, historically, conquered many more people than Persia ever did. They also controlled comparable amounts of land. And furthermore, Alexander ceded his Indus province for 500 elephants; they certainly were effective.

What? Other Indians? Lol, Persians conquered Egyptians on two occasions, Mesopotamia countless times, Turkey twice, India four times, C. Asia again countless times. The only thing you can say about India is that they conquered Pakistan, Afghanistan, and other C. Asian republics. Persians certainly conquered many times more people and much more land on far more occasions. The most Indians could do is tie Persia's size. About Alexander, he killed his friend while drunk and that was around the same time. So no, I don't think you can say he was thinking logically enough to say what was good and not good. Elephants were big. They were useful for frightening people. Historically, they haven't been effective. Poor handling and easily gets scared. Nadir Shah proved that.

Um... Wow. Bad Map. It's as though someone just continued the border, without remembering to close it off. The Guptas controlled most of the territory that (really crappy) map attributes to the Sassinids.

Oh how nice you slander a map given by an organization without giving your own.

EDIT: here's a new map:

http://www.iranchamber.com/history/sassanids/sassanids.php

And no, with those paragraphs, I wasn't even talking about that. I was actually talking about dynasts who ruled over Indian Territory, and since I haven't heard of either of those controlling large amounts of Indian Territory...

The only dynasty which was Muslim which managed to conquer a significant part of India, that of Delhi, was corrupt, ineffectual, and bloated.

Nadir Shah!?!?!?! Are you joking? Lol, then you really need to brush up. Nadir Shah was like the Persian Napoleon and conquered huge amounts of land. Sultan Mahmoud the same.

Maybe I was talking about Darius III, not Cyrus?

The Persian Empire was thoroughly characterized by such freedoms, not simply at the time of Cyrus. It just so happens there was some in-fighting in the Persian realm. Darius III was actually a good king, and seemed like a new start of the Persian Empire. But he lost...

And yet, most Indian merchants were rather wealthy too. Their nobles, their warriors. Only the lower castes were poor, and face it, everybody back then had poor lower classes. Even your beloved Persia.

Lol yes, which is why I'm complaining that Persia isn't up there with India and China. I put Iran on par with India and China, and, in some cases, excelling and I don't see why it's not on the list.

Again, your definition of Persia? Or is it just what the Indians didn't conquer? Do I need to break out the maps of the extensive Mughal and Mauryan Empires?

Definition of Persia is any state that had Iran as the central province. And yes, please break out the maps. It will show that the maximum extent was Pakistan with Iran not effected, nor any empire controlled with Iran, whereas Iran controlled, at height, many Indian lands (aka lands that belong to a central power located within modern-day India).

Neither am I. I'm referring to ancient times, when India had comparable warriors to the rest of the world. When they conquered large portions of the world.

Like India?!?!?!

Look, I'm sorry for intruding on your fantasyland where Persia is the greatest nation on earth. Personally, I always respected Persia as a nation, I like their history. Cyrus the Great is one of my personal heroes. But your fanaticism is blind and stupid. You deny that they were ever truly conquered, well... Mongols. Furthermore, the Parthians. And the Romans. And the Arabs. And after the Mongols, it wasn't worth conquering, since, as you yourself poitned out, it was devastated.

Parthians were an Iranian people. So no, that is merely considered a shift in power between the ethnicities. Rome never conquered Iran EVER. Arabs conquered, but eventually all of Iran broke off and conquered the Arabs. And, while it was devastated, the Il-Khanate kings actually restored much of the total warfare effects. Then the Safavid empire rose up, to challenge the ATTEMPTED conquering by the Ottomans and the C. Asian people, AND the Portuguese. All of them were beaten back by Shah Abbas. THEN Russia tried to conquer us, and they FAILED. Both Peter and Catherine the Great. The Russia was able to take bits and pieces of Persia which are now the stan states in C. Asia.

Then Britain and Russia decided they wanted influence, but couldn't directly control it (unlike India). And no, Britain received huge amounts of OIL from Iran that aided, by the admission of British diplomats, in the winning of WWII. One of the problems Germany had was getting fuel to run everything. So no, Britain had a major stake in Iran. I ask, since you are clearly ignorant concerning these things to read All the Shah's Men.

I love Persia, but you bloat it beyond all recognition. You think it is heaven on earth. And I, frankly, don't. I recognize it as a powerful empire when it had good rulers, not so good when it didn't. Frankly, I'm done debating with you. Take your fanaticism to an "I love Persia" forum. Thanks.

Lol because you've lost. You can't even muster up historical documents and maps to aid your completely false notions. Go ahead and run.

 

[cyrusIII85]

Britain conquered a quarter of the world. Or weren't you looking?

Britain was able to conquer India mainly due to the fact that they had many local allies, and because India was divided. And because India was worth conquering. Iran, at the time of colonialism, was a backwater, poor, with few natural resources. India was rich, with gold, diamonds, and a vast workforce.

Iran had oil, and that has been and will be a major (if not THE major) determinant in value of any state. Iran was as needed, if not more so, than India. It seems however that Iranians are less likely to be controlled.

 

[cyrusIII85]

I may have sounded over critical of the Persian empire, but if you notice I did say that the pre-Hellenistic Persians were the greatest world power west of China or even including China. I also stated that the figures did look a little deflated. All I was trying to do was point out the failures that Persia did have throughout history so that our Persian nationalist friend would be confronted with them. Persia, of course, had many accomplishments that I did not mention, in fact probably more accomplishments than failures, but that does not justify the kind of nationalism Mr. Cyrus is expressing. I admit that I may not be the best person to preach about nationalism given my intense feelings about the under rated accomplishments of the Jewish, Irish, and Hungarian peoples. However, I would never make such jingoist statements as Cyrus here has.

OH? Guess what, I live in the USA and they have confronted me perpetually. However, I have a pretty intimate knowledge of Iran and it's history which is why I was able to successfully deflect and destroy your arguments. Nationalism is about love, not about history or events. As long as you have it, you are invincible and you can take anything that comes your way, at least if you are prepared.

And for the last time, Persians are jingoistic because people fail to understand the achievements of Persia. Do so, and you WILL see me stop posting, even stop talking about Persia. I'm an engineer not a historian.

 

[Israelite9191]

It is quite obvious that you are not a historian. For instance, you claim India never ventured beyond the subcontinent. Do you really need to be enlightened as to the fact that much of South East Asia remain Hindu today because of the efforts of India. Must I likewise enlighten you as to the fact that the Indian traders during the Middle Ages gained unspeakable wealth from the trade between China and Dar al-Islam? Need I inform you that the Indians conquered not only Pakistan, parts of Central Asia, and South East Asia, but also Afghanistan, which was for long periods in history considered an intrigal part of Persia. Believe, I can understand having nationalist seniments. However, much of what you say goes beyond pride in your heritage and becomes the denegration of the Indian people, culture, and history. Also, while patriotism is accpetable, jingoism is not. Finally, I feel I must inform you that your own Iran Chamber Society claims that the most likely source of the art of carpet weaving in Persia is Babylon, with Cyrus the Great having borught the art form back with him to Persia.

 

[North King]

Frankly, cyrus, until you learn some basic history outside of Persian history, I'm not going to bother debating with you. Good day.

 

[cyrusIII85]

It is quite obvious that you are not a historian. For instance, you claim India never ventured beyond the subcontinent. Do you really need to be enlightened as to the fact that much of South East Asia remain Hindu today because of the efforts of India. Must I likewise enlighten you as to the fact that the Indian traders during the Middle Ages gained unspeakable wealth from the trade between China and Dar al-Islam? Need I inform you that the Indians conquered not only Pakistan, parts of Central Asia, and South East Asia, but also Afghanistan, which was for long periods in history considered an intrigal part of Persia. Believe, I can understand having nationalist seniments. However, much of what you say goes beyond pride in your heritage and becomes the denegration of the Indian people, culture, and history. Also, while patriotism is accpetable, jingoism is not. Finally, I feel I must inform you that your own Iran Chamber Society claims that the most likely source of the art of carpet weaving in Persia is Babylon, with Cyrus the Great having borught the art form back with him to Persia.

Perhaps you need to learn how to read. I have said that India did conquer certain parts of C. Asia. No you need not inform me of those conquerings, because I have already posted on them.

Furthermore, why do you view it as a good thing that a people supress an ideology on another people? Certainly it's quite deplorable that Indians forced S.E. Asians to remain Hindu.

Persians also gained alot of wealth from the silk trade. In fact, one of the accomplishments of Persians was the continually runing of the routes which kept the trade, and sharing of ideas, prosperous for all involved parties.

And yes I also mentioned Aghanistan was conquered. However, at the times, it wasn't part of Persia and an independent state. I have heard of ZERO battles between Persian and Indian forces over Afghanistan. Also, it's not at all considered integral. Many soldiers of the Persian Army did come from Afghanistan, but certainly it wasn't the hub of cultural nor political activity at any time.

Also, while it's true that carpet weaving may have been recieved from somewhere else, it certainly doesn't mean that Persian carpets aren't from Persian origin. Persians have had the art for thousands of years, cultivated it, and even the art extends beyond the era of Cyrus because, as I recall, there was a mummy found somewhere with a Persian carpet inside the coffin. It predated his conquests. So maybe that statement is no longer valid because of the find. I remember it was from a book...can't give the name. Oh well...the fact is Persians preserved and enhanced the artform. If it was kept as is, then it would have become long stagnant.

Lastly, I don't mean any disrespect to Indians, but my examples hold and stand. The reason why none of you are fighting against them is because they are true. Simply bringing more examples for me to destroy won't do you any good.

 

[cyrusIII85]

Frankly, cyrus, until you learn some basic history outside of Persian history, I'm not going to bother debating with you. Good day.

Hmmm...this from a person who refuses to cite sources about Indian history??? Lol...

 

[North King]

Lastly, I don't mean any disrespect to Indians, but my examples hold and stand. The reason why none of you are fighting against them is because they are true. Simply bringing more examples for me to destroy won't do you any good.

Actually, no. The reason I'm not fighting any of them is because I haven't seen an example of what you're talking about. You've only brought in a few maps of Persian Empires, which, frankly, look the same to each other.

Fact is, India had a FAR greater cultural and religious impact than Persia did. And for that matter, still does.

Name me one country which is primarily Persian in culture except for Iran. ONE.

As for India, Bangladesh immediately comes to mind, as does Nepal, and Bhutan, Sri Lanka, Maldives, and Pakistan. China, Iran, Afghanistan, Myanmar, Thailand, Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam, Malaysia, and Indonesia have all been influenced to some degree or another. Indians are found in nations across the world, from comprising a majority in countries in South America of all places, to being one of the major components of the present day UK.

India is a cultural powerhouse, with a sphere of influence extending all around the Indian Ocean. Oh, look at that. It's called the Indian Ocean, not the Iranian Ocean. The poor Persians only get a Gulf.

Under direct rule of Indian Empires were parts of India (duh), Sri Lanka, Maldives, Nepal, Bhutan, Pakistan, Afghanistan, bits of Iran, Myanmar, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, and the Maldives. Indian traders went from Madagascar to China, from Indonesia to Egypt.

India is home to two of the top five religions in the world. Iran? None. India has a rich and varied history, with thousands of empires, and much, much wealth.

Frankly, Iran was only at times on a par with the Indian subcontinent. Sometimes, it surpassed it, but those were few and far between. India, as a whole, though disunited, was far more powerful than Iran for most of its time periods.

 

[North King]

Hmmm...this from a person who refuses to cite sources about Indian history??? Lol...

Take a walk around Wikipedia, it would do you much good. Or John Keay's India, a History. Or any other number of books on the subject.

If you'd like me to dredge up maps?

 

[superisis]

As for India, Bangladesh immediately comes to mind, as does Nepal, and Bhutan, Sri Lanka, Maldives, and Pakistan. China, Iran, Afghanistan, Myanmar, Thailand, Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam, Malaysia, and Indonesia have all been influenced to some degree or another. Indians are found in nations across the world, from comprising a majority in countries in South America of all places, to being one of the major components of the present day UK.

you can add some pacific ocean countries. (Vanatu and Tuvalu, etc)

 

[North King]

you can add some pacific ocean countries. (Vanatu and Tuvalu, etc)

Yeah, but that would just be padding the paragraphs, and I don't really have time to.

 

[cyrusIII85]

Actually, no. The reason I'm not fighting any of them is because I haven't seen an example of what you're talking about. You've only brought in a few maps of Persian Empires, which, frankly, look the same to each other.

Yeah, that's because Persians were consistent in conquering. Especially in Middle Persian times.

Fact is, India had a FAR greater cultural and religious impact than Persia did. And for that matter, still does.

Name me one country which is primarily Persian in culture except for Iran. ONE.

Azerbajian. Next question...

As for India, Bangladesh immediately comes to mind, as does Nepal, and Bhutan, Sri Lanka, Maldives, and Pakistan. China, Iran, Afghanistan, Myanmar, Thailand, Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam, Malaysia, and Indonesia have all been influenced to some degree or another. Indians are found in nations across the world, from comprising a majority in countries in South America of all places, to being one of the major components of the present day UK.

Not at all Afghanistan. The other ones have minor influences, especially Vietnam, Laos, Thialand, Cambodia, and not at all major.

As Persia, we have influenced Iraq (influence of Shiism), the majority of Saudi Arabia (E. Saudi Arabia), Bahrain, all of the Arab world through the effects of the Islamic empire and the spread of Persian culture, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, and Pakistan.

I nearly forgot: India was heavily influenced as well! Linguistically, culturally, and artistically.

Turkey as well. Many Persian styles of art and academic influences went there as well. Of course, they sort of melded European, Arab, and Persian cultures.

India is a cultural powerhouse, with a sphere of influence extending all around the Indian Ocean. Oh, look at that. It's called the Indian Ocean, not the Iranian Ocean. The poor Persians only get a Gulf.

Most of the notation comes from ancient times, so I don't believe that's a valid arguement. Also, it so happens India lies much in the center of that ocean, so I think it's slighlty stupid for you to argue pure geographics for why a certain body of water where Indians happened to get to is named after them.

Under direct rule of Indian Empires were parts of India (duh), Sri Lanka, Maldives, Nepal, Bhutan, Pakistan, Afghanistan, bits of Iran, Myanmar, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, and the Maldives. Indian traders went from Madagascar to China, from Indonesia to Egypt.

No bits of Iran. Not one. Until I see maps from you I'm standing by that. Also, "India" really isn't duh, given the fact that you haven't mentioned the fractious country that is India and how it has always been defined by regionalism over nationalism.

India is home to two of the top five religions in the world. Iran? None. India has a rich and varied history, with thousands of empires, and much, much wealth.

Nice repeation. Makes typing alot easier when I can just refer to my past arguements. Also, while Buddhism is a religion that started in India, certainly Indians can take no credit for it. That is of course, because it was virually eliminated from the subcontinent. And, btw, may I remind you that excessive reproduction is something that shouldn't be looked on fondly. India has a large population, and all of them subscribe to the caste system of Hinduism. So what?

Frankly, Iran was only at times on a par with the Indian subcontinent. Sometimes, it surpassed it, but those were few and far between. India, as a whole, though disunited, was far more powerful than Iran for most of its time periods.

Once, again, it makes my life easier when you put out arguments that I've already destroyed through actual examples.

 

[cyrusIII85]

Take a walk around Wikipedia, it would do you much good. Or John Keay's India, a History. Or any other number of books on the subject.

If you'd like me to dredge up maps?

Lol I have. In fact I have contributed to a number of articles over there...the improvement of Iran's economy section for one.

 

[North King]

Yeah, that's because Persians were consistent in conquering. Especially in Middle Persian times.

Yes. They were consistent in conquering areas that didn't resist much.

Azerbajian. Next question...

Is Turkish in language, Arabic in religion. Nice try.

Not at all Afghanistan.

Oh dear. Wrong wrong wrong. Haven't you ever seen the Buddha statues around there?

The other ones have minor influences, especially Vietnam, Laos, Thialand, Cambodia, and not at all major.

*whistles* Wrong. All of these excepting Vietnam have a Buddhist majority. Thailand has a large Hindu population. They take much in the way of Indian food, and dress, and generally all around culture.

As Persia, we have influenced Iraq (influence of Shiism), the majority of Saudi Arabia (E. Saudi Arabia), Bahrain, all of the Arab world through the effects of the Islamic empire and the spread of Persian culture, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Krgyistan, Kazakhstan, and Pakistan.

If you want to claim that Persia is responsible for Arabic and Turkish culture, then yes, your examples hold. Otherwise... Hmm. Bahrain, Iraq... Azerbaijan... the stans. Which you have constantly derided as unimportant whenever they come up.

Most of the notation comes from ancient times, so I don't believe that's a valid arguement. Also, it so happens India lies much in the center of that ocean, so I think it's slighlty stupid for you to argue pure geographics for why a certain body of water where Indians happened to get to is named after them.

Yep, that was sure a MAJOR part of my arguement there.

No bits of Iran. Not one. Until I see maps from you I'm standing by that. Also, "India" really isn't duh, given the fact that you haven't mentioned the fractious country that is India and how it has always been defined by regionalism over nationalism.

Actually, they did conquer bits of what is generally considered in the Iranian zone. Baluchistan, and the far eastern regions.

Also, while Buddhism is a religion that started in India, certainly Indians can take no credit for it. That is of course, because it was virually eliminated from the subcontinent.

And yet, you'd claim Zoroastrianism as a mostly Persian religion, no? Even though almost all Zoroastrians live in India? Furthermore, you claim credit for Iran being the originators of the Shiia religion, which it certainly isn't. Iran is very much Arabic in religion.

Buddhism is very much an Indian religion, with many Indian traditions inherent in it. I don't really see how you can argue with this.

And, btw, may I remind you that excessive reproduction is something that shouldn't be looked on fondly.

Oh, way to take the moral high ground there. I mean... yeah, that was such a blindingly good moral argument... I certainly can't argue against it.

So you say. But you aren't the be all and end all of authorities on these matters.

India has a large population, and all of them subscribe to the caste system of Hinduism. So what?

[sarcasm]Yes, a billion people don't matter at all[/sarcasm]

Once, again, it makes my life easier when you put out arguments that I've already destroyed through actual examples.

Which ones? You haven't destroyed much in my book.

Once again, READ SOME GODDARN HISTORY. Seriously. Iran isn't the center of the world, and neither are you.

 

[superisis]

Seriously. Iran isn't the center of the world.

Have you read the Shanameh?

guys, the area is exausted. No matter who is "right" it is obvious you are not going to convince eachother one way or the other. As for us thirdparty. Well we have already heard almost all there is to say. And as such I propose that we close this. or atleast modify it to discuss a different aspect. Perhaps we could speak about measuring GDP in the ancient days.