The Economic History of the Last 2,000 Years in 1 Little Graph

[ST1976]

The Economic History of the Last 2,000 Years in 1 Little Graph​

That headline is a big promise. But here it is: The economic history of the world going back to Year 1 showing the major powers' share of world GDP, from a research letter written by Michael Cembalest, chairman of market and investment strategy at JP Morgan.

https://cdn.theatlantic.com/media/mt/business/Screen Shot 2012-06-20 at 9.37.55 AM.png

In Year 1, India and China were home to one-third and one-quarter of the world's population, respectively. It's hardly surprising, then, that they also commanded one-third and one-quarter of the world's economy, respectively.

Before the Industrial Revolution, there wasn't really any such thing as lasting income growth from productivity. In the thousands of years before the Industrial Revolution, civilization was stuck in the Malthusian Trap. If lots of people died, incomes tended to go up, as fewer workers benefited from a stable supply of crops. If lots of people were born, however, incomes would fall, which often led to more deaths. That explains the "trap," and it also explains why populations so closely approximated GDP around the world.

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/06/the-economic-history-of-the-last-2-000-years-in-1-little-graph/258676/

 

[ST1976]

here is a class on how Indian economy fell during British presence in India.
Indian economy fell from 17% of World GDP to 2% during British presence in India
.
=>

David Malone: India & Britain​

.
=> this class discuss the graph as below

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/06/the-economic-history-of-the-last-2-000-years-in-1-little-graph/258676/

 

[ST1976]

18 of the last 20 centuries China and India were the biggest economies​

A quick look at the above chart and you may be surprised to see that China and India were by far the biggest economies in the first 18 of the last 20 centuries. Sure, it is all based on estimations and using different time intervals on the x-axis is actually not done. But nevertheless, we can draw some valuable insights from this chart.

18 of the last 20 centuries China and India were the biggest economies – Evert-Jan Ouweneel

urbanlogics.eu

 

[my2cents]

18 of the last 20 centuries China and India were the biggest economies​

View attachment 962062

A quick look at the above chart and you may be surprised to see that China and India were by far the biggest economies in the first 18 of the last 20 centuries. Sure, it is all based on estimations and using different time intervals on the x-axis is actually not done. But nevertheless, we can draw some valuable insights from this chart.

18 of the last 20 centuries China and India were the biggest economies – Evert-Jan Ouweneel

urbanlogics.eu

Give it another 50 years, the trend will revert back to year one.

 

[ST1976]

Give it another 50 years, the trend will revert back to year one.

I was referring your quote about British Empired 'enslaved' these Fijians etc, and took those slaves to Australian continent and to North America.
now, when we find Indian Labors were 'cheaper' than British Labors, since when???? since 1820, when Maratha empire fallen?.......

first how much British labors were worth for labor cost upto 1820? till the fall of Maratha empire which helped them having first hand hold over empire. as below.
means, until Western Labors were 'cheaper' than Indians, how they brought these slaves? at least upto 1890+, Western Labors were 'cheaper' than Indian subcontinent one.

look, you Westerners were so poor upto 1820, and things were nearly richer people in India upto 1890+ etc. and Industrial revolution during WW1 and WW2, ...
we find, British labors were cheaper than Indian Onces during British's most of time of presence in India, upto 1890+....

.
=> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maratha_Empire#History

Maratha Empire​

During the final and Third Anglo-Maratha war (1817-19), the British achieved widespread success in their military endeavours. They successfully removed the Peshwa from power,

Government	Absolute monarchy (1674–1731) Federal oligarchy with a restricted monarchial figurehead (1731–1818)

Ultimately, the Third Anglo-Maratha War (1817–1818) resulted in the loss of Maratha independence. It left the British in control of most of the Indian subcontinent. The Peshwa was exiled to Bithoor (Marat, near Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh) as a pensioner of the British.

Maratha Confederacy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[ST1976]

Give it another 50 years, the trend will revert back to year one.

bro, as discussed in this thread, our Indian Subcontinent economy was nearly 17% of World GDP upto 1818, till fall of Maratha, and start of British Empire. last post#5, with the lecture post#2.
from here, while having look on the Chart, post#3, USA won't be said having expansive labors till 1890, till victory in WW1
now we have a close look on the industrial revolutions and its meaning emerged till WW1.
means, as from news of this thread, Indian subcontinent had 'expansive' labors than Western ones upto WW1

 

[ST1976]

What was the percentage of Muslims in India during the Mughal Empire?

What was the percentage of Muslims in India during the Mughal Empire?

Answer (1 of 4): Mughal Empire reached at its peak position in year 1700 with 4 million sq km area; [INDIA-(KERALA+NORTHEAST STATES+2/3rd TAMIL)]+[BANGLADESH]+[PAKISTAN] Then population mughal india was 158.5 million . Among it hindus-128 million(81%) , muslims-29 million(18%) , others-1.5 m...

www.quora.com

=>
Mughal Empire reached at its peak position in year 1700 with 4 million sq km area;

Then population Mughal India was 158.5 million .

Among it

hindus-128 million (81%) ,

muslims-29 million (18%) , others-1.5 million (1%)

Among 158.5 million

INDIAN REGION-125 million

[muslim-9.5 million(7.5%),

hindu-114.7 million(91.75%),

others-0.8 million(0.75%)]

PAK REGION-15 million

[muslim-9.5 million(64%),

hindu-5 million(33%),others-0.5 million(3%)]

BANGLA REGION-18.5 million

[muslim-10 million(54%),

hindu-8.3 million(45%),others-0.2 million(1%)]
.

=> https://www.jstor.org/stable/44137074?typeAccessWorkflow=login

 

[ST1976]

The economy of the Mughal Empire was large and prosperous.[1] India producing about 28% of the world's industrial output up until the 18th century.[2][3] Mughal India's economy has been described as a form of proto-industrialization, like that of 18th-century Western Europe prior to the Industrial Revolution.[4]

Economy of the Mughal Empire - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[ST1976]

I was referring your quote about British Empired 'enslaved' these Fijians etc, and took those slaves to Australian continent and to North America.
now, when we find Indian Labors were 'cheaper' than British Labors, since when???? since 1820, when Maratha empire fallen?.......

first how much British labors were worth for labor cost upto 1820? till the fall of Maratha empire which helped them having first hand hold over empire. as below.
means, until Western Labors were 'cheaper' than Indians, how they brought these slaves? at least upto 1890+, Western Labors were 'cheaper' than Indian subcontinent one.

look, you Westerners were so poor upto 1820, and things were nearly richer people in India upto 1890+ etc. and Industrial revolution during WW1 and WW2, ...
we find, British labors were cheaper than Indian Onces during British's most of time of presence in India, upto 1890+....

.
=> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maratha_Empire#History

Maratha Empire​

During the final and Third Anglo-Maratha war (1817-19), the British achieved widespread success in their military endeavours. They successfully removed the Peshwa from power,


View attachment 962114

Government	Absolute monarchy (1674–1731) Federal oligarchy with a restricted monarchial figurehead (1731–1818)

Ultimately, the Third Anglo-Maratha War (1817–1818) resulted in the loss of Maratha independence. It left the British in control of most of the Indian subcontinent. The Peshwa was exiled to Bithoor (Marat, near Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh) as a pensioner of the British.

Maratha Confederacy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

18 of the last 20 centuries China and India were the biggest economies​

A quick look at the above chart and you may be surprised to see that China and India were by far the biggest economies in the first 18 of the last 20 centuries. Sure, it is all based on estimations and using different time intervals on the x-axis is actually not done. But nevertheless, we can draw some valuable insights from this chart.

18 of the last 20 centuries China and India were the biggest economies – Evert-Jan Ouweneel

urbanlogics.eu

here we have something,
South Asia map at 1758, before start of British Empire

Dictionary of 10,000 Indian Kings - Part 20

www.speakingtree.in

 

[Bevvy Rosh]

The Economic History of the Last 2,000 Years in 1 Little Graph​

That headline is a big promise. But here it is: The economic history of the world going back to Year 1 showing the major powers' share of world GDP, from a research letter written by Michael Cembalest, chairman of market and investment strategy at JP Morgan.

https://cdn.theatlantic.com/media/mt/business/Screen Shot 2012-06-20 at 9.37.55 AM.png
View attachment 962056

In Year 1, India and China were home to one-third and one-quarter of the world's population, respectively. It's hardly surprising, then, that they also commanded one-third and one-quarter of the world's economy, respectively.

Before the Industrial Revolution, there wasn't really any such thing as lasting income growth from productivity. In the thousands of years before the Industrial Revolution, civilization was stuck in the Malthusian Trap. If lots of people died, incomes tended to go up, as fewer workers benefited from a stable supply of crops. If lots of people were born, however, incomes would fall, which often led to more deaths. That explains the "trap," and it also explains why populations so closely approximated GDP around the world.

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/06/the-economic-history-of-the-last-2-000-years-in-1-little-graph/258676/

For those wondering why Pakistan isn't mentioned in the graph :-

"A representative from India at the UN Assembly began his address thus: ‘Before beginning my talk I want to tell you something about Rishi Kashyap of Kashmir, after whom Kashmir is named. When Rishi Kashyap struck a rock and it brought forth water, he thought, “What a good opportunity to have a bath.” He took off his clothes, put them aside on the rock and entered the water. When he got out and wanted to dress, his clothes had vanished. A Pakistani had stolen them.’ The Pakistani representative jumped up furiously and shouted, ‘What are you talking about? The Pakistanis weren’t there then.’ The Indian smiled and said, ‘And now that we have made that clear, I will begin my speech saying that Kashmir has been an integral part of India all along.”​

 

[ST1976]

How would be India today if the Marathas had conquered the whole India?

After winning their war with mughals marathas went after Muslim iranoafgan rule lead by abdali within a time period of 50 year . They lost to Ahmad shah in third battle of panipat on 1761 . Support of rohilla Muslims (rampur riyasat of today ) and navab of awadh were the major factor for victory of Abdali . In 1771 when marathas regained their strength they erased Rampur (rohillas).( it was reestablished later by British to show Muslims that British were saviours of Islam ) . But till 1780′s attention of marathas was diverted towards British . This saved at least Awadh from Marathas .

In India it is observed that the religion to whom the dictators belonged to people converted into it . So the no of followers o f Sikhism and Christianity would have been also lesser if Marathas had good luck , or a time gap of 30–40 years before British became powerful ( to gain more strength to defend British )

Conclusion if Marathas remained powerful

• Their would be no Pakistan and Bangladesh today
• Bhutan and Nepal govts would have been paying annual tax to India like ranjit Singh of Lahore , jats of bharatpur , or rajputs of Rajputana paid
• % of Muslims , Sikhs or Christians would have been very lower than today
• In absence of British - schooling would have been different
• Indian wealth would not have had been looted and transported to Britain
• No reservation
• Coexistence of democracy and monarchy may have been adopted like other open minded principalities of world .

How would be India today if the Marathas had conquered the whole India?

Answer (1 of 4): It is very difficult to speculate on what would have happened. There are many reasons for it : A. There is no evidence that Marathas had any idea of eastern India . B. The disunity in ranks of Marathas between the leaders like Scindia, holkars, Gaikwad etc is historical fact. ...

www.quora.com

 

[ST1976]

For those wondering why Pakistan isn't mentioned in the graph :-​

​

"A representative from India at the UN Assembly began his address thus: ‘Before beginning my talk I want to tell you something about Rishi Kashyap of Kashmir, after whom Kashmir is named. When Rishi Kashyap struck a rock and it brought forth water, he thought, “What a good opportunity to have a bath.” He took off his clothes, put them aside on the rock and entered the water. When he got out and wanted to dress, his clothes had vanished. A Pakistani had stolen them.’ The Pakistani representative jumped up furiously and shouted, ‘What are you talking about? The Pakistanis weren’t there then.’ The Indian smiled and said, ‘And now that we have made that clear, I will begin my speech saying that Kashmir has been an integral part of India all along.”​

if we see the graph of post#1, USA was absolute poor Labors till 1800. by 1820, they show upward. and till 1890+, they can't be said having 'expansive' Labors than Indian subcontinent one. and with WW1 victory, they virtually started.....

a sense, till 1820, USA was nothing, the graph
.
=>

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/06/the-economic-history-of-the-last-2-000-years-in-1-little-graph/258676/

2,000 Years of Economic History in One Chart

This chart compares the economies of major powers from 1AD all the way until today, showing the impact of the Industrial Revolution and re-emergence of Asia.

www.visualcapitalist.com

 

[ST1976]

here we have something,
South Asia map at 1758, before start of British Empire

Dictionary of 10,000 Indian Kings - Part 20

www.speakingtree.in

with Mughal, Sikh empire was also worth noticing, who also surrendered to British Empire by 1849
.
=>
The Sikh Empire was a regional power based in the Punjab region of South Asia.[8] It existed from 1799, when Maharaja Ranjit Singh captured Lahore, to 1849, when it was defeated and conquered by the British East India Company in the Second Anglo-Sikh War. It was forged on the foundations of the Khalsa from a collection of autonomous misls.[1][9] At its peak in the 19th century, the empire extended from Gilgit and Tibet in the north to the deserts of Sindh in the south and from the Khyber Pass in the west to the Sutlej in the east as far as Oudh.[10][11] It was divided into four provinces: Lahore, which became the Sikh capital; Multan; Peshawar; and Kashmir from 1799 to 1849. Religiously diverse, with an estimated population of 4.5 million in 1831 (making it the 19th most populous country at the time),[12] it was the last major region of the Indian subcontinent to be annexed by the British Empire. Some of the notable Commander-in-Chief of the Sikh Empire were Misr Diwan Chand, Hari Singh Nalwa and Diwan Mokham Chand.

Sikh Empire - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Sikh Empire at the death of Ranjit Singh in 1839
.
=> map of British India at 1839:

 

[ST1976]

double post

 

[ST1976]

Give it another 50 years, the trend will revert back to year one.

how you see map of South Asia from 1758's map to 1858? nearly it was 1858 when Mughal also surrendered to British.....
Sikh Empire show 'Pagri' of South Asia, the having map of Kashmir to Lahore during Sikh Empire upto 1849, post#13.....