Indian Subcontinent or China, who had the larger economy in Pre-Modern times?

Landil said:

Madison is not at all a reliable dataset as far as I'm concerned, certainly not on the non-Western world.

Click to expand...

The Economist magazine respected his work. And they are the most respectable economic and political magazine around.

MAGolding said:

The Chinese Empire fell apart into several independent states several times between 221 BC and AD 1912. During those periods of division China was not unified.

Similarly India had long periods when a small number of large realms dominated the subcontinent, other periods with many small realms, and still other periods when one large empire ruled the majority of the subcontinent. So during the historic era China was usually more unified that India, but India was sometimes largely unified..

Click to expand...

This is not relevant for economic discussion.

starstrike said:

This is not relevant for economic discussion.

Click to expand...

Except that some answers in this thread discuss the economies of the entire regions, and some discuss the economies of the states which ruled the majority of the region. In times of war the military spending of various powers in the region might stimulate the economy, or the devastation caused by the warring armies might reduce the economy.

Naomasa298 said:

The answer largely depends on which country you come from.

Click to expand...

So young and yet so cynical!

OTTOVON BISMARCK said:

Probably India this is Simply because of India's agriculture rich lands that can produce a Lot of crops India also had monopoly on High quality Cotton, sugar Refinary techniques, Diamonds, spices and had High quality textiles
Ancient India was richer than china But there where exceptions china Under the Han, Tang and Song dynasties was Richer than India
during the Ming dynasty period India was slightly richer and during early qing period the Mughal empire was at it's Peak by Late qing dynasty period Indian economy went through slow decline

Click to expand...

Many of your statements lack factual support. The fact that China, with significantly less arable land compared to South Asia, is still able to sustain a comparable population is quite revealing to me

heavenlykaghan said:

View attachment 74652

View attachment 74653

Click to expand...

As @HackneyedScribe has pointed out, the Chinese GDP data from Broadberry may underestimate the actual figures. Therefore, the true Chinese GDP numbers could be higher than reported. Furthermore, according to Leeuwen (2018, pp. 25), the Han Dynasty achieved a GDP per capita of $750, already surpassing India's GDP per capita in 1600 AD.

Not possible. China was isolated without the extensive trade networks that India had developed with the Roman world.

MAGolding said:

Except that some answers in this thread discuss the economies of the entire regions, and some discuss the economies of the states which ruled the majority of the region. In times of war the military spending of various powers in the region might stimulate the economy, or the devastation caused by the warring armies might reduce the economy.

Click to expand...

They might or they might not. You cannot make a simple case either way. Small coastal kingdoms with a large export oriented industry could easily outproduce large landlocked empires.

Ram077 said:

Many of your statements lack factual support. The fact that China, with significantly less arable land compared to South Asia, is still able to sustain a comparable population is quite revealing to me

Click to expand...

Modern agriculture and a higher productivity per acre due to fertilizers and pesticides enables that.

In the ancient world these technologies were not available. One depended on the annual flooding of alluvial soils to fertilize the land.

Ram077 said:

Many of your statements lack factual support. The fact that China, with significantly less arable land compared to South Asia, is still able to sustain a comparable population is quite revealing to me

Click to expand...

I am talking about the Ancient period Where Modern Technologies never played any role
India had the largest Arable land of the Ancient period and still does
it also Had Established Trade Roots in the Indian Ocean Having a Monopoly on spices and Diamonds

Ram077 said:

As @HackneyedScribe has pointed out, the Chinese GDP data from Broadberry may underestimate the actual figures. Therefore, the true Chinese GDP numbers could be higher than reported. Furthermore, according to Leeuwen (2018, pp. 25), the Han Dynasty achieved a GDP per capita of $750, already surpassing India's GDP per capita in 1600 AD.

Click to expand...

Indian GDP of the 16th and 15th century Are not Calculated Properly Many sources for Indian GDP starts from 18th century so I am not so sure

Also, cotton and silk.

Silk is associated with China, but if you go by actual evidence like the Roman period records, silk was an Indian export to the Roman world.

Visigoth Panzer said:

Who had the larger economy in pre-modern times, China or the Indian subcontinent (before 1800)? This probably varied over time, but in general which region was economically larger during what periods?

Click to expand...

The Mughal Empire was economically larger than the Qing dynasty

So there are some major discrepancy in the estimation of early Qing population. It is not until 1776 that the Qing started to count individual heads in tax, so early Qing census figures mentioning the Ding are just tax units and completely useless in determining its real population.
Cao Shuji gave a much higher estimate of early Qing population than others:

1644: 152.5 million
1679: 160 million
1776: 311.5 million
1820: 383.1 million

This figure is higher than around 120 million given by Ge Jianxiong as the early Qing figure or the even lower traditional estimates of below 100 million.

Cao's methods however, are more scientific, as he extensively used county level gazetteers in the Qing to add up the figures for a population instead of looking just at national census and make assumptions from that. Yet the problem is that he can only really make relatively reliable estimates from 1776 on.
He assumes that the Manchu conquest did not actually result in much of a population decline, most of the late Ming decline was the result of the civil war that happened since the 1630s, and the Manchu takeover of the north was too fast too see any population decline; they did slaughter in the south but only at a few selected places, while the north was growing in population. Even the conquest of the South for the Qing was much more smooth than say the Mongol conquest.

His methods also challenges other theories. According to him, there was no real population explosion under the Qing. Early Qing growth was not faster than those of the Han, Tang, or Song, albeit it was faster than the Yuan and Ming. But for the purpose of this thread, if we use his figures, Qing population was always higher than Mughal population (it would be around 185 million for 1700). Ge Jianxiong's estimates would imply that the two had comparable population, whereas traditional estimates would imply the Qing had less and there was huge population explosion.

We can’t directly compare China’s and India’s premodern economies in any meaningful way, but historians often use population size as a proxy, since both regions had huge populations and high levels of agricultural productivity as a result. In many estimates, the two alternate in total output share depending on the century, with both together making up a massive portion of the world economy until the 18th century. The idea of “largest economy” really only becomes meaningful with industrialization in the late 18th–19th centuries.