6 ms·

" richest and most powerful country in the history of the world..." not even close http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pre-modern_great_powers http://en.wiki

by genofon 13y ago

" richest and most powerful country in the history of the world..." not even close http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pre-modern_great_powers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pre-modern_great_powers

spindritf 13y ago
Does any of those countries come close to the GDP of, say, Alabama ($160bn)? Sure, comparing the value of organic wine form Rome to a car from Detroit is not straight-forward but technological progress and compound interest generally ensure that powers of today absolutely dwarf those of even a hundred years ago, not to mention a thousand years ago, or two. The ancient empires had troubles feeding their populations at times. Today, most Americans are overweight.
- oblio 13y ago
  I think he wants to compare the relative values. The Achaemenid Empire at its peak probably produced half of the world's goods.
- idlewan 13y ago
  > The ancient empires had troubles feeding their populations at times. Today, most Americans are overweight. Problem not solved: the population still has problems being fed the right things for their health to improve.
- genofon 13y ago
  GDP is a modern concept made to measure today's economy. But if you talk about power US is the most powerful country but not dominant (see Syria and Crimea). The British empire at his peak held one fifth of the worlds population. The Roman empire conquered everything was worth conquering and he was providing free food and gigantic games to his poor citizens. If you consider modern Europe his GDP is very similar to the US, although his political situation is more fragmented. So back to the OP in each era the economic conditions improved, and there was a place where this improvements was more evident, a country who was richer and more powerful than the others. US is one of these nations but it's not something exceptional in history as the OP suggested.
  - seanmcdirmid 13y ago
    > The Roman empire conquered everything was worth conquering and he was providing free food and gigantic games to his poor citizens. The Han dynasty coexisted with the Romans, and I think they had a lot more people and land in their empire.
- vacri 13y ago
  The gross world product is about 72 trillion dollars. Alabama's share of that is 0.2%. In order to 'come close to Alabama', a historical power would have to be close to 0.2% of the world's GDP at the time. And I don't think any of the ones in that list went that low.
  - spindritf 13y ago
    0,2% of the world's GDP in 2012 is a good measure for a comparison of Alabama to other modern countries in 2012, not a comparison of Alamaba 2012 to Rome 12 AD. That's like saying that the last person on Forbes 500 is not really rich because they barely have 0.05% ($3 billion / $6 trillion) of the group's net worth.
    - vacri 13y ago
      Wealth is a relative measure, not an absolute one. "That's like saying that the last person (blah)" No, because relative to other people, they have more stuff. The proportion they have of the group's net worth is significant greater than almost all other members, who have generally have five or more orders of magnitude less wealth (0.0000005% and less). The reason why you're having trouble converting from countries to individuals is because there's currently only 200 countries, but 7 billion individuals. That's why the individual's percentage looks lower. Also, your comparison makes absolutely no allowance for inflation. GDP rises for everyone over time simply due to inflation. Your shekel could purchase more in the time of Herod than it could in the time of Netanyahu. Zimbabwe's GDP went through the roof in recent years in their own dollars; but it didn't as a comparison to the rest of the world's output.
odonnellryan 13y ago
I don't agree with you. To quickly cite another WikiPedia Entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wealthiest_historical_figures http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wealthiest_historical_f... How many of those figures are of the US? Not trying to start a pissing contest. Sorry.
- genofon 13y ago
  the OP is talking about nowadays US, so no Rockefeller, Ford and friends. As it's difficult to compare richness through history I was focusing on relative power. Can someone challenge US now? yes: Russia, China, Europe. Some past empires didn't have any counterpart because they were too powerful for anyone.
  - seanmcdirmid 13y ago
    China or Europe can challenge America? The Chinese can barely float a carrier and have only a few nukes. Europe depends of the USA for most of its defense. Russia counts, since this is the nuclear age with MAD and all, but it hardly counts if it's suicide. Economically, china is still not into high income yet, while Russia is stuck in a natural resources trap with lots of corruption. Europe is quite fine though.
bogs_carut 13y ago
None of those pre-modern great powers could compete either economically or militarily with the modern United States. Of course, they might have been relatively more powerful in relation to their contemporaries, but that hardly implies anything relevant about the modern era.
- genofon 13y ago
  well it's pretty obvious that a gun is more efective than an arrow. US is the most powerful country now, but it isn't dominant (see Syria, Crimea, etc..) and it not as dominant as the British Empire or the Roman Empire was at their time
jessaustin 13y ago
So many disagree with this proposition because it does not convey the meaning you apparently intend. "Most powerful" might conceivably be a relative measure, but there's no way that "richest" is. Most nations of Europe (probably not Moldova, Slovenia, and a few others), on both a total and per capita basis, consume much more than anyone on that list. In a military contest most modern European nations would by more concerned about veterinary care for the enemy's horses, than the military outcome. Next time you intend to make a relative statement, use the word "relative". Of course, that was not what the post to which you responded was discussing, so your post would have been more obviously beside the point.
- genofon 13y ago
  as technology improves and time pass seems obvious that mankind is richer and have better military than the past. You can probably say that nowadays Slovenia could win against 1600 Spanish empire, so the only comparison that is reasonable a relative comparison, that's why I didn't specify. I agree that it wasn't the main point of the post i was replying to but I found that point just smug and incorrect, backed-up with cultural bias rather than historical fact. EDIT: sorry, I wasn't clear enough, my comparison was mostly in the "most powerful" part rather than "richest"
  - vacri 13y ago
    Of course it's relative. Power is about asserting your will, and inherent in that is having someone to assert it over. Saying that a modern country could beat a historical one in a war is silly. It is interesting to note that in the 60 years that the US has been the ascendent world power, they've withdrawn from all sizeable wars with objectives unmet. If you're using actual active warfare as the yardstick, then the US is not powerful at all on comparison to historical powers. If you're using sensible measurements of power, then of course the US is powerful, most of it from projection of force and cultural/soft power.
- oblio 13y ago
  > Most nations of Europe (probably not Moldova, Slovenia, and a few others), on both a total and per capita basis, consume much more than anyone on that list. Be careful with Europeans, they get pissed off easily. Slovenia has a GDP (PPP) per capita of $28,195. While that's half of the US it is actually a lot, they're definitely not subsistence farmers in Mali. You cannot really compare it with Moldova - $4,182. First world versus close to third world :)

by genofon 13y ago

spindritf 13y ago

Does any of those countries come close to the GDP of, say, Alabama ($160bn)? Sure, comparing the value of organic wine form Rome to a car from Detroit is not straight-forward but technological progress and compound interest generally ensure that powers of today absolutely dwarf those of even a hundred years ago, not to mention a thousand years ago, or two. The ancient empires had troubles feeding their populations at times. Today, most Americans are overweight.

oblio 13y ago
I think he wants to compare the relative values. The Achaemenid Empire at its peak probably produced half of the world's goods.
idlewan 13y ago
> The ancient empires had troubles feeding their populations at times. Today, most Americans are overweight. Problem not solved: the population still has problems being fed the right things for their health to improve.
genofon 13y ago
GDP is a modern concept made to measure today's economy. But if you talk about power US is the most powerful country but not dominant (see Syria and Crimea). The British empire at his peak held one fifth of the worlds population. The Roman empire conquered everything was worth conquering and he was providing free food and gigantic games to his poor citizens. If you consider modern Europe his GDP is very similar to the US, although his political situation is more fragmented. So back to the OP in each era the economic conditions improved, and there was a place where this improvements was more evident, a country who was richer and more powerful than the others. US is one of these nations but it's not something exceptional in history as the OP suggested.
- seanmcdirmid 13y ago
  > The Roman empire conquered everything was worth conquering and he was providing free food and gigantic games to his poor citizens. The Han dynasty coexisted with the Romans, and I think they had a lot more people and land in their empire.
vacri 13y ago
The gross world product is about 72 trillion dollars. Alabama's share of that is 0.2%. In order to 'come close to Alabama', a historical power would have to be close to 0.2% of the world's GDP at the time. And I don't think any of the ones in that list went that low.
- spindritf 13y ago
  0,2% of the world's GDP in 2012 is a good measure for a comparison of Alabama to other modern countries in 2012, not a comparison of Alamaba 2012 to Rome 12 AD. That's like saying that the last person on Forbes 500 is not really rich because they barely have 0.05% ($3 billion / $6 trillion) of the group's net worth.
  - vacri 13y ago
    Wealth is a relative measure, not an absolute one. "That's like saying that the last person (blah)" No, because relative to other people, they have more stuff. The proportion they have of the group's net worth is significant greater than almost all other members, who have generally have five or more orders of magnitude less wealth (0.0000005% and less). The reason why you're having trouble converting from countries to individuals is because there's currently only 200 countries, but 7 billion individuals. That's why the individual's percentage looks lower. Also, your comparison makes absolutely no allowance for inflation. GDP rises for everyone over time simply due to inflation. Your shekel could purchase more in the time of Herod than it could in the time of Netanyahu. Zimbabwe's GDP went through the roof in recent years in their own dollars; but it didn't as a comparison to the rest of the world's output.

odonnellryan 13y ago

I don't agree with you. To quickly cite another WikiPedia Entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wealthiest_historical_figures http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wealthiest_historical_f... How many of those figures are of the US? Not trying to start a pissing contest. Sorry.

genofon 13y ago
the OP is talking about nowadays US, so no Rockefeller, Ford and friends. As it's difficult to compare richness through history I was focusing on relative power. Can someone challenge US now? yes: Russia, China, Europe. Some past empires didn't have any counterpart because they were too powerful for anyone.
- seanmcdirmid 13y ago
  China or Europe can challenge America? The Chinese can barely float a carrier and have only a few nukes. Europe depends of the USA for most of its defense. Russia counts, since this is the nuclear age with MAD and all, but it hardly counts if it's suicide. Economically, china is still not into high income yet, while Russia is stuck in a natural resources trap with lots of corruption. Europe is quite fine though.

bogs_carut 13y ago

None of those pre-modern great powers could compete either economically or militarily with the modern United States. Of course, they might have been relatively more powerful in relation to their contemporaries, but that hardly implies anything relevant about the modern era.

genofon 13y ago
well it's pretty obvious that a gun is more efective than an arrow. US is the most powerful country now, but it isn't dominant (see Syria, Crimea, etc..) and it not as dominant as the British Empire or the Roman Empire was at their time

jessaustin 13y ago

So many disagree with this proposition because it does not convey the meaning you apparently intend. "Most powerful" might conceivably be a relative measure, but there's no way that "richest" is. Most nations of Europe (probably not Moldova, Slovenia, and a few others), on both a total and per capita basis, consume much more than anyone on that list. In a military contest most modern European nations would by more concerned about veterinary care for the enemy's horses, than the military outcome. Next time you intend to make a relative statement, use the word "relative". Of course, that was not what the post to which you responded was discussing, so your post would have been more obviously beside the point.

genofon 13y ago
as technology improves and time pass seems obvious that mankind is richer and have better military than the past. You can probably say that nowadays Slovenia could win against 1600 Spanish empire, so the only comparison that is reasonable a relative comparison, that's why I didn't specify. I agree that it wasn't the main point of the post i was replying to but I found that point just smug and incorrect, backed-up with cultural bias rather than historical fact. EDIT: sorry, I wasn't clear enough, my comparison was mostly in the "most powerful" part rather than "richest"
- vacri 13y ago
  Of course it's relative. Power is about asserting your will, and inherent in that is having someone to assert it over. Saying that a modern country could beat a historical one in a war is silly. It is interesting to note that in the 60 years that the US has been the ascendent world power, they've withdrawn from all sizeable wars with objectives unmet. If you're using actual active warfare as the yardstick, then the US is not powerful at all on comparison to historical powers. If you're using sensible measurements of power, then of course the US is powerful, most of it from projection of force and cultural/soft power.
oblio 13y ago
> Most nations of Europe (probably not Moldova, Slovenia, and a few others), on both a total and per capita basis, consume much more than anyone on that list. Be careful with Europeans, they get pissed off easily. Slovenia has a GDP (PPP) per capita of $28,195. While that's half of the US it is actually a lot, they're definitely not subsistence farmers in Mali. You cannot really compare it with Moldova - $4,182. First world versus close to third world :)