Looking for historical GDP data

[amadeus]

This document has SO many inaccuracies concerning Iran.

Fantastic. Do you have any numbers availible?

 

[North King]

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.

Sorry, ignorance is a hard pill to swallow. I'll be avoiding this thread from now on.

 

[cyrusIII85]

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

Um...no. Persians fought extensively with Rome and Byzantines for those areas. One of the greatest examples was Armenia, where there was a pro-Roman kingdom, and it was conquered by Persians. In fact, every single independent kingdom in the Middle East backed by Rome was I believed conquered by Persians. Mespotamia also has large river resources, so it's natural that Persians conquered it.

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

Language and religion, while components of culture, do not define a nation. Azerbajian has very strong Iranian hsitory and roots, with many cultural similarties. So yes, Persian in background. And btw, case you forgot, Islam is celebrated in Iran so I'm wondering how can you say that it's religion makes it distant from Iran?

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

The ones that were blown up by the Taliban? Are those the same ones? last time I checked, Afghanistan isn't linguistically related to Indians nor religiously. In fact, I don't think any budhist actually exist there nowadays. Funny thing actually, Iran can actually take some credit in preserving and expanding the role of Buddhism. The same can't be said of India. In fact, in many ways, Buddhism is to India as Zoroasterianism is to Iran. Both imbody cultural values of the countries, but both now exist in other countries.

*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.

Well you are very linear in characterizing influence to religion solely. Much more things go into culture than belief of after death. But yes, they do have some Indian and some Chinese influences.

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.

Turks didn't have any culture when the first reached the middle east. They were herders and nomads. When they first arrived, they contacted Persian culture first, and as a result they nowadays hold many Persian cultural influences. Furthermore, all of those countries in the past had large Persian populations, and they still do, despite the language change. I will also remind you that Turkish is present in Iran so I don't see how that distances Iran from C. Asia. Arabs have some deviations, but the first major civilization they came into contact with was Persian and gradually became more and more influenced by Persia over Saudi Arabia.

And yes, like the countries you've mentioned, they were mostly unimportant. However cities like Samarkand and, generally, Uzbekistan, do have expansive histories.

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

Regardless, you argued that, and it was a stupid arguement.

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

Can I have a map. And to this day I don't consider Baluchistan part of Iran. It's always been a renegade, backwards area.

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.

Right, incorporating Persian culture. And, as I've stated before, India has many Persian elements in it due to Persian influences on India. And it can't be helped that they escaped the persecution of Arabs by fleeing to India. Despite this, they still call themselves Parsi, which shows the Persian influence on them despite being away for so long. Also, while Islam is Arabic, Shiism incorporates many things that are different from Arab belief. The coming of a person to initate armageddon, the belief in arguementation and discussion, and hierarchial cleric positions all are heavy Persian attributes. Also, if you forget, Shiism wouldn't exist as it does without the patronage of the Saffavids, who were Persian.

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.

I argue by the fact that Indians persecuted it's development within India to the extent it fleed the mainland and sought refugee outside of Indian influence.

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.

I don't see how overpopulation and sprawling cities are a good thing...

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

It doesn't matter that Indians, who had such ideas, were to grow so extensively that their religion actually becomes important. Islam spread to alot of areas. Same with Christianity. You argue for S. E. Asia, but the fact is Indians were the only ones who PHYSICALLY could influence them. Chinese were locked up in themselves, and India was the only one there as a result.

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

Hmm...somehow I don't think you have been following what has happened.

Generally,

You give some generalized argument -> I counter it with actual historical examples -> you say I'm wrong and/or ignore my historical comments.

I haven't seen how you've countered my examples of constant Persian intrutions into India and backed them up with any outside resource.

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

I have, and you are wrong. I find the fact that I am the one who cited any outside resources to be proof of the fact that I am the only one here actually reading anything instead of making misleading and false comments.

 

[luiz]

Both Persia and India were great civilizations, this discussion is silly.

Let's get back to the original discussion.

So, a GDP of 16.5 billion dollars for China in the year 1 AD? If true that's really impressive. My guess would have been below one billion.

340 billion dollars in 1820 is equally amazing, and equally hard to believe. IIRC, in the 70's China's GDP was around 400 billion dollars. I thinks this number is really really unlikely.

 

[superisis]

Are these GDP measurements weighted (i.e. to Purchase Power Parity). I also find these numbers a tad off.

 

[cyrusIII85]

Both Persia and India were great civilizations, this discussion is silly.

Let's get back to the original discussion.

So, a GDP of 16.5 billion dollars for China in the year 1 AD? If true that's really impressive. My guess would have been below one billion.

340 billion dollars in 1820 is equally amazing, and equally hard to believe. IIRC, in the 70's China's GDP was around 400 billion dollars. I thinks this number is really really unlikely.

That was my point too! Lol...

I find that the "dollars" amount to be absurd. First, currency is based on what value people inside and outside the country put on it. As such, how can a person apply a dollar amount to another country 2000 years ago?!?!?! Valuing worked on a completely different system, and I don't believe applying modern day economic terms to historical eras is not at all accurate. New terms describing the bartering/trading systems need to be developed whenever dealing which such ancient economies IMO

 

[cyrusIII85]

Fantastic. Do you have any numbers availible?

No, but I can tell you it would be high. Riches per person, comparable to Persia and India.

Once again, since my original arguement has been somewhat diluted, I don't see how a person can say India and China "manufactured" anything when they didn't have industrial processes. It seems like a misnomer.

Have you read the Shanameh?

Have you? Are you Persian?

 

[Israelite9191]

Map 1
Map 2
Map 3
Map 4
Map 5
Lets see, all of 5 of these maps depict the Mauryan Empire as controlling parts of Iran. One even depicts (out of the picture) the Mauryans controlling a very significant part of Iran. Oh, also take note of the fact that the ruler during the period was Asoka, a Buddhist. Furthermore, take notice that according to this article Indian culture had a significant effect on the cultures of South East Asia and other parts of Asia. Also, I feel I must inform you that the caste system is not abided to by the entirety of India. Hindus in fact make up only 80% (some say less) of the population. Jains, Sikhs (both of which native to India and major world religions), Buddhists, Muslims, Christians, Jews, Hare Krishna, and others make up the remaining population of India. All of these do not abide by the caste system. In fact, many Hindus do not follow it. Furthermore, the caste system in India is illegal due to the efforts of Mahatma Gandhi. Now that I have said my peace, I will ignore this thread. While I have no real excuse for responding, I must say that North King was right, ignorance is a hard pill to swallow.

 

[cyrusIII85]

Map 1
Map 2
Map 3
Map 4
Map 5
Lets see, all of 5 of these maps depict the Mauryan Empire as controlling parts of Iran. One even depicts (out of the picture) the Mauryans controlling a very significant part of Iran. Oh, also take note of the fact that the ruler during the period was Asoka, a Buddhist. Furthermore, take notice that according to this article Indian culture had a significant effect on the cultures of South East Asia and other parts of Asia. Also, I feel I must inform you that the caste system is not abided to by the entirety of India. Hindus in fact make up only 80% (some say less) of the population. Jains, Sikhs (both of which native to India and major world religions), Buddhists, Muslims, Christians, Jews, Hare Krishna, and others make up the remaining population of India. All of these do not abide by the caste system. In fact, many Hindus do not follow it. Furthermore, the caste system in India is illegal due to the efforts of Mahatma Gandhi. Now that I have said my peace, I will ignore this thread. While I have no real excuse for responding, I must say that North King was right, ignorance is a hard pill to swallow.

Ah how nice. Now need to see why exactly the maps differ, since usually maps without dates mean the peak of the empire. It's quite interesting that such a map would exist that largely deviates from another, usually means its wrong, poorly designed, or making some weird assumption about the rule in SE Iran. Regardless, if one were to go to such areas, there wouldn't be a trace of anything Indian. However, as stated before, and as the maps point out, I see no clear penetration of Iran. They seem to be at Iranian borders, and at most seem to go into Baluchistan, which, as I've discussed before, is nearly an autonomous region, filled with opposing tribes and drug trafficking. Lately, they even took hostage some Iranian law enforcers. It never was part of Iran...but even I can't be sure if the maps truly refrence conquering Iranian territory. It's pretty obvious concerning India because of the Indus River.

Also, while wiki is a good source generally, a wiki article without academic citations might as well be any half-baked opinion. You have to do better than that.

And yes, India controls Kashmir, which is largely Muslim and is on the outskirts of India. The rest of the other religions are too miniscule to even matter. Islam and Christianity exist in China, despite the fact that it's an official "atheist" country. As long as they are in small quantities, they can be neglected.

Now regarding the decline: http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/11-17-2005-81716.asp

It's convenient that you mention Asoka, who was a Buddhist, but the last great patron of Buddhism. After him, it declined severely. Interesting how you forgot to mention that part.

Lastly, we are talking about Indian history. It is clear and evident that Hinduism and the caste system were fully enforced for thousands upon thousands of years. Lately, due to modernization effects, such traditions have declined, but we are focusing on Indian history, and the caste system was strictly enforced in the past.

Alas, I agree. Ignorance is hard to get over. But, through my constant interactions with all of you, I'm slowly getting used to it .

I take it then you don't want my access to Peruvians???

My list btw:

http://iranmiras.ir/fr_site/history/sasani/Image-42.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...anid_empire.jpg/300px-Map_sassanid_empire.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/abu_musa_town/Iran_during_Sasanian.gif
http://www.iranchamber.com/history/sassanids/sassanids.php

 

[superisis]

Once again, since my original arguement has been somewhat diluted, I don't see how a person can say India and China "manufactured" anything when they didn't have industrial processes. It seems like a misnomer.

Well, depends on how one defines "manufactoring". Economically, secondary goods (or manufactor goods) are goods that have been "refined" or "manufactored", i.e. processed somehow. So if this is what is measured, then it obviously predates the industrial revolutions.

 

[cyrusIII85]

Well, depends on how one defines "manufactoring". Economically, secondary goods (or manufactor goods) are goods that have been "refined" or "manufactored", i.e. processed somehow. So if this is what is measured, then it obviously predates the industrial revolutions.

Yeah...I just think a different word would be more clear and appropriate. One usually dosen't refer to pre-industrial age work as "manufactured". Whatever...too meager to even fight about it...

 

[cyrusIII85]

Okay well, despite my efforts, I haven't found as good resources as the ones mentioned concerning historical comparisons of various countries. Good night everyone.

 

[simonnomis]

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.

Are you forgetting that the only reason Iranian oil aided the British WW2 efforts is because Britain invaded Iran in 1941 in order to secure the oil fields from the pro-Nazi Teheran government? Whether a country is conquered or not is usually a result of its relative importance. The importance of oil to the war is what suddenly made Iran worth the effort.

 

[sydhe]

Manufacturing would include things like clothmaking, carpentry and pottery. India was a big source of textiles before the Industrial Revolution.

 

[cyrusIII85]

Are you forgetting that the only reason Iranian oil aided the British WW2 efforts is because Britain invaded Iran in 1941 in order to secure the oil fields from the pro-Nazi Teheran government? Whether a country is conquered or not is usually a result of its relative importance. The importance of oil to the war is what suddenly made Iran worth the effort.

No, not at all. It originally stemmed from the Anglo-Iranian Oil company efforts to find oil. Once they did, which was before WWII, they basically went through great and rather unfair policies to gain all the oil and leave very little of the revenue to Iranians. It was the fear of Britain that the Iranian government wished to back out of the agreement by supporting rival Nazi powers. As a result, it was invaded (and we aren't talking about a large invasion, just enough to secure the refineries), and then was quickly released because of the realignment of Iran to the Allies by the Shah’s son (aka the shah).

When Mossadeq took oil away from the British, they didn't attempt another invasion because Iranian resistance was too great. As a result, with US efforts, Mossadeq was deposed and Iranian anger got fed up to the point of the 1979 revolution. And now it's realized that invasions are of relative little importance when powers all of a sudden withdraw and the hardships of Russia controlling N. Iran. All of it goes to show that Iran was inherently more difficult to control and India, with it's huge population, and could have done the same in fast time. If they truly wanted to secure Iran, they could have just kept troops there, and Russia tried to do that, but resistance was too great and eventually ceeded.

All of it, in the end, shows that oil was continually important to Britain even before the war, and that Iran was never fully controlled despite being quite chaotic and resisitive at many points in time.

Btw, I thought an article about baluchistan would be nice:

http://www.baloch2000.org/history/history.htm

 

[cyrusIII85]

Manufacturing would include things like clothmaking, carpentry and pottery. India was a big source of textiles before the Industrial Revolution.

Anything that turns raw goods into finished products could be considered such. I'm just saying it usually refers to industrial processes.

 

[Rambuchan]

This has got to be one of the most spectacularly and sadly jacked threads I've ever come across. Not only is the discussion totally off topic but it's also riddled with countless errors, making it one of the least informative thread jackings I've had the honour of being subjected to. My congratulations to all involved



Just two aspects behind the large China and India figures in these kind of tables:

A ~ Cheap food: We often talk about the large populations behind the economic figures of China and India. This is typically done with a suggestion that people breed like rabbits in these two countries (despite government attempts to regulate birthrates in the former). We also talk about these large populations providing cheap, cheap, super cheap labour. Well there's one big reason behind both these dynamics - cheap food.

Since the seventeenth century it has been assumed that the low prices for Indian cloth was due to low wages for the manufacturers. In contrast to the sturdy and well-paid artisan of Europe, Indian weavers were portrayed as impoverished and oppressed. In recent years this picture has been radically revised as evidence has been provided for similar standards of living for weavers and spinners in Britain and regions of India in the mid-eighteenth century. The competitiveness of Indian cloth, it is now believed, had its origins in the lower prices for grain, which was half or quarter of prices in Britain. Therefore, comparable standards of living could be achieved with far lower money wages in the Indian subcontinent, which translated into lower prices for cloth.

~ "Living Standards in the Past: New Perspectives on Well-Being in Asia and Europe" (Oxford, 2005) - Robert C. Allen, Tommy Bengtsson and Martin Dribe (eds.)

B ~ Trade routes: But it's not much good having great, cheap produce if you can't get it out to market. This is what Europe found when it began to 'industrialise' (from 18th century onwards really) and produce goods that began to rival those of Asia in quality, quantity and cost. It was those nations that had established themselves as maritime powers with foreign holdings - and navies to keep trade routes open - that benefited from these technological and hence trading advances. It should come as no surprise that Britain's stellar economic growth ran hand in hand with "Brittania rules the waves".

India, China and yes, even Persia, had extensive trade routes established with wealthy imperial customers that European powers simply did not enjoy until the Age of Discovery. Be it the Silk Road, the sea routes in and out of Calikut (touching Africa, the Middle East, China etc), the South East Asian sea routes or the Middle Eastern client traders that later became the Arabian empires of the Middle Ages; China and India (in their varied historical incarnations) have driven home the advantage of plentiful, rare natural resources and large, cheaply employed labour supplies - because the trade routes existed and remained open for the most part. Their client markets have been not only wealthy but they have been diverse, widespread and numerous too. Something Britain would relish when it too supplied a similarly widespread customer base.

China, India and you know who have been trading in significant quantities with Europe at least since the times of Rome; many silks, gems, silvers and other hand manufactured goods have bene found on Roman digs. Unfortunately the same cannot be said in reverse for empires like Rome and later European incarnations. This is partly due to the fact that European goods were simply not in demand (see the chronicles of Indian courtiers when Europeans arrive inthe 16th century) but also due to competition closing down trade routes of benefit to Europeans - like the Abbasids, Seljuks, Ottomans and others. The long running trade routes enjoyed by India and China only came under serious threat and disturbance from the 18th and 19th centuries - exactly when we see the most dramatic decline in their economic indicators.

 

[cyrusIII85]

This has got to be one of the most spectacularly and sadly jacked threads I've ever come across. Not only is the discussion totally off topic but it's also riddled with countless errors, making it one of the least informative thread jackings I've had the honour of being subjected to. My congratulations to all involved

Since I'm the main source of this jacking, even though it was meant as a challenge to the data given, I am deeply appreciative of your support over the direction of the thread . I aim to please!

The point about food availability, hence lower pricing, I find to be a very good point btw. If you can't feed a population, you can't grow it, and can't work it. Everything needs energy to function...

 

[superisis]

Rambuchan, I was wondering when you (or Silver, or all_hail_india) would join this thread.

A ~ Cheap food: We often talk about the large populations behind the economic figures of China and India. This is typically done with a suggestion that people breed like rabbits in these two countries (despite government attempts to regulate birthrates in the former). We also talk about these large populations providing cheap, cheap, super cheap labour. Well there's one big reason behind both these dynamics - cheap food.

perhaps there is reason to the EU farm subsidies after all? Hmm...

B ~ Trade routes:

T'is widely known (though often ignored in highschools) that the reason for Columbus sailing to "India" was to get around the pesky Ottomans (the middlemen).

you forget to include the Chinese emperors decision (forget which one) to close off China to the world, and later to base the Chinese currency on silver. The first contributed to the decline in Chinese power, the second contributed to the increase in European power (who had recently "found" great amounts of silver in the New World)

 

[cyrusIII85]

you forget to include the Chinese emperors decision (forget which one) to close off China to the world, and later to base the Chinese currency on silver. The first contributed to the decline in Chinese power, the second contributed to the increase in European power (who had recently "found" great amounts of silver in the New World)

Oh? When did the Chinese decide that? And when did Chinese decide to use paper money as currency? I forget these things...